hywind: two years in operation, what have we learnt and ... · •the models simulate the motions...
TRANSCRIPT
Classification: Internal 2011-10-26
Hywind: Two years in operation, what have we learnt and where are we going?
The Hywind O&M Team Morten Tufte Thorbjørn Ulriksen Klaus K. Haglerød Ørjan Haugen Anders Wikborg Tom James Emil Orderud Nenad Keseric Anne M. Hansen
Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Seminar 19th January 2012
2 Classification: Internal 2011-10-26
Content
Offshore Wind Operation
Hywind Demo
Project opportunities
3 - Classification: Internal 2011-09-06
Principles for a Low Risk Operating Model
Organisation Contractual obligation must reflect organisational capabilities for both OEM’s and Owner
Both parties must recognize each others capabilities
Technology Asset owner must take responsibility for technical integrity and increase internal knowhow
of the systems
Cooperation Force lean thinking, zero scrap and component reliability on the suppliers through new
standards both in production and operation
OEM’s
Work should be carried out in accordance with recognised standards with transparency at
all levels
Owner should have an active retrofit program
Maintenance is one of the largest controllable operating costs in capital intensive industries
Maintenance influence: Commercial risk; Production; Safety; Cost
Classification: Internal 2011-09-08Classification: Internal 2011-09-06
. . . will be used to develop a modern operating model for wind O&M
Critical Processes
Critical processes in control means good stability
Best Practice Work Processes
Controlling the value chain through best practice
work processes
Performance Management
Structured measures on all levels increase
performance
Organisational Development
Lean organisational structure based on principles
in integrated operations
Decision Structure
Effective meeting structure for better and
transparent decisions Spares
ROI
IT/ ERP Systems
Capital Programme
Asset Registers
Logistics
Fault Rectification
Reliability
Modifications
Inspections
Unscheduled M.
Scheduled M.
Production &
Dispatching
5 - Classification: Internal (Restricted Distribution) 2011-05-23
• In operation from September 2009
• Actual movements confirmed
simulation model
• Floater motions have no negative
impact on turbine performance
• Capacity factor 50% in 2011
• Access and inspection confirmed to
be satisfactory
• Technically verified
Hywind Demo - concept verified
Hywind Performance
• Reduction of downtime with 1870 hr
by better planning and quicker
response
• Only one unscheduled stop in
second operational year
• 50% production increase
• Average wind speed
• 2nd year was 9,1 m/s, 3%
below normal
• 1st year was 12% below
normal
• Overall availability 94,5 %
• Capacity factor at 47,3%
• 4390 full load hours for 2011
(average in Norway ~2100)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010- 2011 2009-2010
Downtime [hr]
Other
Wind out ofspec.
Grid
Turbine
9,5
6,4
2010- 2011 2009-2010
Production [GWh] November - November
94,6 90,3
47,3
31,6
2010- 2011 2009-2010
Availability% Cap.Fact%
Classification: Internal 2012-01-04 6
Downtime November 2010 – November 2011
• Vibration alarm was eliminated in Mars
2010, through effective root cause
analysis
• Manuel stop is decided by owner and
can be minimised by preventive
maintenance
• The two other major losses left are
related to increased pitching at extreme
waive and wind conditions. Better
cooling system will be installed to
eliminate the loss.
Classification: Internal 2012-01-04 7
Production in heavy seas
8 Classification: Internal 2011-10-26
• 24 hour trendperiode during
the «Dagmar» storm last
Christmas.
• Avg. wind speed: 16 m/s
• Max wind speed: 28 m/s
• Avg. significant wave height:
4,7 m
• Max significant wave height:
• 7,1 m
• Power production for the
periode: 96,7% of rated
power.
Wind distribution. 2011 compared to histcast
9 Classification: Internal 2011-10-26
10 - 20/01/20122011-08-23 10 - 2011-08-23 10 - Classification: Internal 2011-03-04
FOCUS ON HEALTH AND SAFETY (HSE)
• Same HSE standard as on all Statoil installations
• Focus on:
− Work permit system
− Boat landing, access , egress and PPE
− Lifting equipment
• No serious accidents
• Mitigating actions:
− Hands-on follow-up of Statoil and Siemens equipment and procedure
− Safety Job Analyses
− Table top workshops - Defined situations of hazards and accidents (DSHA)
− Safety training of personnel on-board Hywind
12 - Classification: Internal 2011-06-23
Rescue from hub – use of milan and 2 metre rope
13 - Classification: Internal 2011-06-23
Rescue from nacelle – outside tower
14 - Classification: Internal 2011-06-23
Rescue outside
15 - Classification: Internal 2011-06-23
Other HSE activities at Hywind in June
16 - Classification: Internal 2011-06-23
Observations and ideas - rescue from nacelle
• Inside rescue – challenges related to confined spaces and many movements of
injured person
• Outside rescue – faster and easier due to less movements
• Attach Milan rescue kit to injured when possible
• Possible rescue time can be less than 1 hour for outside rescue
• Time from nacelle to boat based on speed with Milan Hub rescue is about 1:30min
• Frequent training and exercises will reduce the rescue time
• Helicopter rescue will reduce transport time to hospital but not necessarily rescue
time form nacelle
• Enable training on rescue tools, i.e. use of Milan rescue kit and fall arresters
• Develop training packages together with service provider
• Use Hywind for training purposes
Classif
ication
:
Intern
al
2011-
03-11
Conventional Wind Turbine Control System
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
time [s]
tow
er
pitch a
ngle
[deg]
• Example of stable (solid line) and unstable (dashed line) behaviour of Hywind
Demo with and without use of a stabilizing floater motion controller.
• Hywind Demo was shut down after 250 seconds with use of the unstable
conventional controller.
18 - 20/01/20122011-08-23 18 -
Verification of our structural load model
• The models simulate the motions and the structural loads which we control with different
regulators
• We have tested two regulators working differently towards the structural loads and which
have been used as important components in the cost and design optimization
440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520
-2.2
-2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
Tower Pitch Angle
time [s]
pitc
h [d
eg]
Measured
Simulated
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5Tower Pitch Angle
time [s]
tow
er
pitch a
ngle
[deg]
controller 1
controller 2
Classif
ication
:
Intern
al
2011-
03-11
Conclusions
• It is demonstrated that a stabilizing floater motion controller is required for
a floating wind turbine.
• Simulations and measurements are compared for wind speeds above
rated wind speed. Good agreement is obtained in small as well as
moderate sea states.
• Two different stabilizing controllers are compared by full scale testing. A
significant difference in the response at resonance is observed. This
difference is important to the fatigue life of the tower.
• The range of variation of typical wind turbine parameters like rotor speed,
blade pitch angle and active power production are similar to what is
observed for fixed foundation wind turbines.
Classif
ication:
Interna
l
2011-
06-03
20 -
Interfaces to Bringing Cost of Offshore Wind Down
PLAN DO Check
Plan BCOWD Activities
Codification RDS-PP
FMECA
RCM
Reliability Database
OPEX Calculation tool
Condition Monitoring Analyses
Access Criteria
Vessel Planning
Do BCOWD Activities
Remote Operation
Condition Based Maintenance
Vessel Operation
Access Criteria
New lift solution
Check BCOWD Activities
Reliability data analyses
Condition monitoring Analyses
Classif
ication:
Interna
l
2011-
06-03
21 -
22 - Classification: Internal 2011-09-16
22
Roadmap going forward
Large Parks, 500-1000MW
<10 years
Pilot Park, 3-6 turbines
<5 years
Concept
2001
Model test
2005
Full-scale
prototype
2009
• The technical concept is considered proven
• Establish pilot parks to demonstrate cost reductions, reduce risks and
increase market pull (<5 years)
• Large parks 500-1000MW is the end game objective (<10 years)
Industry engagement and support from governments is driving the
timelines
Hywind II Pilot Parks under evaluation
• Base Case 15 MW:
− Capacity factor 44%, wind speed 9,7 m/s
• Water depths:
− Transfer from 60 m
− Installation from 100 m
• Preferred location at Buchan Deep 20 -25 km outside Peterhead
• Production start-up earliest 2015
• Substantial cost improvements since demo
23 - Classification: Internal (Restricted Distribution) 2011-05-23
Buchan Deep
Scotland
• Base Case 12 MW:
− Capacity factor 39%, wind speed 9 m/s
• Water depths:
− Installation at 120 m
• Preferred location in Bay of Maine 20 -25 km outside Boothbay
• Production start earliest 2016
• Substantial cost improvements since demo
USA
24 - Classification: Internal (Restricted Distribution) 2011-05-23
Way forward
• Next step is to commercially prove the
concept at sites with good market, wind
and support conditions
• US Maine and Scotland most mature
cases
• Assessing other areas as technology
supplier or future park developer