Centre for Energy Research

Département Génie Energétique

Massey University
et Environnement
Private Bag 102 904
Domaine scientifique de la Doua
North Shore Mail Centre
69621 Villeurbanne
Auckland
France
New Zealand

Fourth year work placement report

Léa Sigot

Techno-economic analysis of distributed generation options

from renewable energy sources and grid-interaction scenarios
for Totara Bank site

7th April – 31st August 2008

Engineer supervisor: Dr Attilio Pigneri
Teacher supervisor: Agnès Delmas
 Acknowledgements

To Massey University Centre for Energy Research for welcoming foreign trainees; and
in particular,

To Attilio Pigneri, my supervisor, for taking time to guide and advise me with
enthusiasm throughout this research project in spite of his busy timetable.

To Andy Duncan, Totara Bank project initiator, for his willpower to conceive and
develop a sustainable land.

To Mandy Armstrong involved in Totara Bank project for contributing to my

work progress by sharing some results.

To Ralph Sims, MUCER director who I met during the World Environment Day
in Wellington, for his encouragements and desire to share his knowledge.

To the school of engineering multicultural staff for the pleasant work atmosphere.

To the INSA and the Energy and Environment department for offering me the
opportunity to realize such an enriching experience.

To Agnès Delmas, my INSA teacher supervisor, for following at a distance my

internship progress.

To the Rhône-Alpes scholarship for contributing to enable me to realize my work

placement in New Zealand.

To Sylvain Lamige for his advices and curiosity about my research project.

To my parents for their support to make this project take shape.

To New Zealand for this unique experience “à l’autre bout du monde”.

2
 Abstract
This five-month research project was dedicated to contribute to the progress of
Totara Bank project, a long-term sustainable land development currently in realisation
in the Wairarapa district, New Zealand. This large-scale initiative lumped together
energy, environment and social matters.

On-site electricity generation from renewable energy sources is one of the many
aspects considered in this scheme. This report aims to develop a techno-economic
analysis of distributed generation options from renewable energy sources and grid-
interaction scenarios.

The realisation of a template and the identification of the best-suited electricity

generation alternatives were conducted using in particular HOMER modelling software.
The use of such a tool requires first the collection of several kinds of inputs before
being able to run the simulation.

In view of the renewable energy sources available on site, meteorological records

were exploited to evaluate both solar and wind resource potentials: the wind capacity is
a priori limited by a low average wind speed and the solar radiation one is comparable
to the middle range in New Zealand.
The performances of a range of technologies that could possibly be implanted on
site were determined so that the most promising in terms of energy potential were
selected for the simulation. As economics is the second dimension of this analysis, cost
estimates of the considered components were built.
As the load has to be satisfied at any time, the amount of electricity required is
governed by the demand of the whole site. Therefore, electrical demand profiles were
developed according to different possible scenarios.

Finally, given the characteristics and conditions of the site, results concerning the
feasibility of a Distributed Generation system are unfortunately not very attractive.
Whatever the sensitivity analysis realised, the most cost-effective configuration is
always a grid-only system even considering an optimistic scenario. Renewable
technologies are not yet competitive at today’s price.
Nevertheless, if wished, a DG system installation is of course possible but costly.
This option would not be chosen regarding economic considerations but according to
other convictions; the willpower of imposing a minimal renewable fraction on site
seems indeed part of Totara Bank concept.

Key words: Sustainable land development – Electricity generation mix – Distributed

Generation system – Renewable energy alternatives – Techno-economic analysis –
HOMER – Sensitivity analysis – Wairarapa District, New Zealand

3
 Table of contents
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 3
Table of contents........................................................................................................... 4
List of figures ................................................................................................................ 7
List of table ................................................................................................................... 8
Nomenclature ................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction................................................................................................................. 11
Context .................................................................................................................... 11
Objective ................................................................................................................. 11
Methodology ........................................................................................................... 11
Part I - Totara Bank Background .................................................................................... 12
I. Project outlines................................................................................................ 12
1. Concept ....................................................................................................... 12
2. Motivations ................................................................................................. 12
II. Site description................................................................................................ 12
1. Location ...................................................................................................... 12
2. Organization and construction .................................................................... 12
3. Common facilities ....................................................................................... 12
III. Previous work ................................................................................................. 13
1. Land layout ................................................................................................. 13
2. Whole solar access planning ....................................................................... 13
3. Optimized eaves shade angles..................................................................... 13
4. Site thermal self-sufficiency ....................................................................... 13
5. Discussion on the site resources ................................................................. 14
a. Solar ........................................................................................................ 14
b. Wind........................................................................................................ 14
Part II - Modelling tool review: HOMER....................................................................... 15
I. What is HOMER? ........................................................................................... 15
II. Modelling capabilities..................................................................................... 15
1. What does HOMER do? ............................................................................. 15
2. How to use HOMER? ................................................................................. 15
III. Input requirements .......................................................................................... 15
Part III - Data collection.................................................................................................. 16
I. Available resource data................................................................................... 16
II. Average profiles.............................................................................................. 16
1. Wind resource ............................................................................................. 16
a. Long-term average hourly wind speed profile........................................ 16
b. Wind speed frequency distribution curve ............................................... 17
c. Wind rose ................................................................................................ 21
d. Discussion ............................................................................................... 21
2. Solar resource.............................................................................................. 22
a. Long-term average hourly global solar radiation profile ........................ 22
b. Day-month average global solar radiation profiles................................. 23
I. Sources ............................................................................................................ 23
II. Data requirements ........................................................................................... 24
1. Component performance data ..................................................................... 24
a. Wind turbines.......................................................................................... 24
b. Photovoltaic panels ................................................................................. 25

4
 c.
Batteries ..................................................................................................25
d.
Inverters ..................................................................................................25
2. Cost estimation............................................................................................25
a. Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) ...........................................................25
b. Available cost data ..................................................................................26
c. Capacity function estimates ....................................................................26
d. Capital, Replacement and 0&M cost estimations ...................................28
I. Original electrical demand data ...................................................................... 29
II. Electrical demand scaled with HEEP data ...................................................... 29
1. Baseline electrical demand data ..................................................................29
2. HEEP electrical demand data......................................................................30
3. Scaled electrical demand data .....................................................................30
III. Electrical space heating alternatives ............................................................... 30
1. Electrical demand without electrical space heating ....................................31
2. Electrical demand with electrical space heating .........................................31
a. Scenario 1................................................................................................32
b. Scenario 2................................................................................................32
Part IV - Result analysis..................................................................................................34
I. Wind turbine energy output ............................................................................ 34
1. Energy distribution curve and annual yield ................................................34
2. Capacity Factor ...........................................................................................35
II. PV panels energy output ................................................................................. 36
I. Baseline conditions ......................................................................................... 37
1. Choice of the wind turbine..........................................................................37
2. Optimal system configuration .....................................................................38
3. Converter capacity ......................................................................................39
II. Sensitivity analysis.......................................................................................... 39
1. Purchase price of electricity ........................................................................39
2. Project lifetime ............................................................................................40
3. Interest rate..................................................................................................41
a. Payback time ...........................................................................................41
b. Internal Rate of Return............................................................................41
4. Average wind speed ....................................................................................42
5. Component costs .........................................................................................43
a. Wind turbine ...........................................................................................44
b. PV panels ................................................................................................44
6. Electrical demand........................................................................................45
a. Variation of the average electrical demand.............................................45
b. Electrical space heating...........................................................................46
III. Optimistic scenario.......................................................................................... 47
IV. Minimum renewable fraction.......................................................................... 47
1. Number of wind turbines ............................................................................48
a. Levelized Cost of Energy........................................................................48
b. Net Present Cost......................................................................................48
c. Grid sales.................................................................................................48
d. Discussion ...............................................................................................49
2. Discussion about the renewable fraction definition ....................................49
V. Net metering versus double metering ............................................................. 51
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................53
References ...................................................................................................................54

5
Appendix..................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix A – HOMER input requirements ............................................................... 56
I. Resources ........................................................................................................ 56
1. Wind............................................................................................................ 56
2. Solar ............................................................................................................ 56
II. Demand: Primary load .................................................................................... 56
III. Technologies ................................................................................................... 57
1. Wind turbine ............................................................................................... 57
2. PV panels .................................................................................................... 57
3. Battery......................................................................................................... 57
4. Converter..................................................................................................... 58
5. Grid ............................................................................................................. 58
IV. Economy ......................................................................................................... 59
Appendix B – Average day-month wind speed profile............................................... 59
Appendix C – New Zealand solar radiation map........................................................ 60
Appendix D – Wind turbine models ........................................................................... 60
Appendix E – Wind speed – power curves ................................................................. 61
Appendix F – PV panel characteristic......................................................................... 61
Appendix G – Day-month hourly electrical demand – Method discussion................ 62
Appendix H – July daily hourly electrical demand profile comparison ..................... 63
Appendix I – HOMER input assumptions: Baseline conditions................................. 64
I. Resources ........................................................................................................ 64
1. Wind............................................................................................................ 64
2. Solar ............................................................................................................ 64
II. Demand: Primary load .................................................................................... 65
III. Technologies ................................................................................................... 65
1. Wind turbine ............................................................................................... 65
2. PV panels .................................................................................................... 66
3. Battery......................................................................................................... 66
4. Converter..................................................................................................... 67
5. Grid ............................................................................................................. 68
IV. Economy ......................................................................................................... 69
V. System control................................................................................................. 69
VI. Constraints ...................................................................................................... 69
VII. Emissions ........................................................................................................ 69

6
 List of figures
Figure 1: Long-term average wind speed profiles at anemometer height.......................17
Figure 2: Long-term wind speed frequency distribution curve at anemometer height ...18
Figure 3: Long-term annual average duration curve at anemometer height ...................20
Figure 4: Long-term average wind speed frequency distribution curves at different
heights .............................................................................................................................20
Figure 5: Long-term average wind rose at anemometer height ......................................21
Figure 6: Long term average global solar radiation profiles...........................................22
Figure 7: Long-term day-month hourly average global solar radiation..........................23
Figure 8: Cost Breakdown Structure for Totara Bank project ........................................26
Figure 9: Wind turbine cost estimates and capacity function .........................................27
Figure 10: Day-month hourly electrical demand profiles for the eight houses without
electrical space heating ...................................................................................................31
Figure 11: Day-month hourly electrical demand profiles for the eight houses with
electrical space heating [scenario 1] ...............................................................................32
Figure 12: Day-month hourly electrical demand profiles for the eight houses with
electrical space heating [scenario 2] ...............................................................................33
Figure 13: Annual wind energy distribution curves for different wind turbine models .34
Figure 14: Annual yield for different wind turbine models ............................................35
Figure 15: Day-month hourly average global solar radiation received by a PV panel for
β= 41°..............................................................................................................................37
Figure 16: Totara Bank model ........................................................................................38
Figure 17: Optimal system mixes according to Cgrid and to the project lifetime ............40
Figure 18: Simple and discounted paybacks (annihilation of cumulative cash flow).....41
Figure 19: Optimal system configurations according to Cgrid and to the annual average
wind speed.......................................................................................................................42
Figure 20: Renewable energy cost trends (in constant 2000 US$) .................................43
Figure 21: Optimal system configuration according to Cgrid and to the wind turbine cost
multiplier .........................................................................................................................44
Figure 22: Optimal system configuration according to Cgrid and to the PV cost multiplier
.........................................................................................................................................45
Figure 23: Optimal system configuration according to Cgrid and to the daily average
consumption ....................................................................................................................46
Figure 24: Sankey diagram: electricity balance over a year ...........................................47
Figure 25: System levelized COE according to the minimum RF and the average wind
speed................................................................................................................................48
Figure 26: Optimal DG hourly electrical profiles on January 1st for a minimum RF of
20 % ................................................................................................................................49
Figure 27: Illustration of RF(4) definition........................................................................50
Figure 28: Long-term average day-month hourly wind speed profile (1995-2007) .......59
Figure 29: New Zealand global solar radiation map [16] ...............................................60
Figure 30: Wind speed – power curves for different wind turbine models ....................61
Figure 31: PV panel characteristic: Nominal power versus surface ...............................61
Figure 32: Average day-month hourly electrical demand for the eight houses according
to the method presented above........................................................................................63
Figure 33: Comparison between the original (from monitoring) July and the built
baseline July average daily hourly electrical demand for the eight houses ....................63

7
 List of table
Table 1: Site and meteorological station geographical characteristics ........................... 16
Table 2: Possible values for the surface roughness length z0 [13].................................. 19
Table 3: Scope of cost and performance survey for Totara Bank electrical generation . 24
Table 4: Capacity function parameters ........................................................................... 28
Table 5: Definition of the different costs for the survey................................................. 28
Table 6: Capacity factors for different wind turbine models .......................................... 36
Table 7: Optimal feasible configurations – Comparison of WT6000 model output
options............................................................................................................................. 38
Table 8: Optimal feasible configurations in the baseline conditions .............................. 38
Table 9: Sensitivity results according to different Cgrid assumptions ............................. 39
Table 10: IRR according to Cgrid for a Grid/Wind DG composed of one WT6000........ 42
Table 11: WT6000 wind turbine performances according to the annual average wind
speed................................................................................................................................ 43
Table 12: Proportion of electrical consumption generated by each component ............. 50
Table 13: Electrical balance for a particular DG composed of one WT6000 and three
Soma 1000 ...................................................................................................................... 51
Table 14: Renewable fraction according to several definitions...................................... 51
Table 15: Purchase & sale price and quantity – Grid/Wind DG with two WT6000 ...... 51
Table 16: Electricity bills with double or net metering .................................................. 52
Table 17: Wind turbine models from the literature surveyed ......................................... 60
Table 18: n and f values used in Eavg_month_day_hourly calculation ...................................... 63

8
 Nomenclature

Variables

Wind shear

v: Wind speed (m/s)

z0: Surface roughness length (m)
zhub: Hub height (m)
zanem: Anemometer height (m)

Cost estimation

Cyear: Estimate cost of the component in year’s NZ$

PPIyear: Producer Price Indices for year
Cx: Estimated cost of the component of size Sx (NZ$)
C0: Known cost of the component of size S0 (NZ$)
n: Capacity exponent

Electrical demand

Eavg_month_day: Average day-month electrical consumption (kWh/d)

Eavg_month_day_hourly: Average day-month hourly electrical consumption (kWh/h)
Etot: Total annual electrical consumption (kWh/y)
Eavg_day: Average daily electrical consumption (kWh/d)
(ndays)month: Number of days in month
Rmonth: Ratio between Eavg_month_day and Eavg_day
Etot_HEEP: Total annual electrical consumption published in HEEP reports (kWh/y)
Eavg_day_HEEP: HEEP average daily electrical consumption (kWh/d)
Eavg_month_day_HEEP: HEEP average day-month electrical consumption (kWh/d)
Eavg_month_day_hourly_HEEP: Average day-month hourly electrical consumption scaled
with HEEP figures (kWh/h)
DiffFebruary: Relative difference between Eavg_month_day and Eavg_February_day
DiffJuly: Relative difference between Eavg_month_day and Eavg_July_day
nmonth: month index using nJanuary= 1 as reference
n July − nmonth
f = where n = 5 from March to June and 7 otherwise
n

PV panels output calculations

A: Equivalent horizontal surface of the PV panels intercepted by the solar rays (m²)
S: Surface of the PV panels (m²)
α: Solar altitude angle (°)
β: Slope of the PV panels (°)
η: Efficiency

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AC: Alternative Current

BPI: Building Performance Index

9
CC: Capital Cost
CF: Capacity Factor (%)
Cgrid: Price of electricity purchased from the grid (NZ$/kWh)
CBS: Cost Breakdown Structure
COE: Cost of Energy
DC: Direct Current
DG: Distributed Generation system
EECA: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
HEEP: Household Energy End-use Project
IC: Installation Costs
IRR: Internal Rate of Return
NIWA: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
NPC: Net Present Cost
NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NZD or NZ$: New Zealand Dollars
0&M: Operation & Maintenance
PPI: Producer Price Indices
PV: Photovoltaic
RF: Renewable Fraction
UC: Uninstalled Cost

10
 Introduction

Context
As many countries, New Zealand tries to reduce its greenhouse gases emissions –
contributing to global warming – by moving step by step towards renewable energy
alternatives. The land characteristics offer an important natural potential for hydro,
solar, wind and geothermal installations. Although large-scale electricity generation
schemes are being currently developed, the capacities are still poorly exploited and
therefore the production is still reliant on traditional fuels such as coal and gas.
The awareness of the necessity to protect our planet environment and the willpower
to take care of the local natural wealth encourage also personal initiatives.

Massey University Centre for Energy Research (MUCER) is actively involved in

many projects concerned by energy and environment. Interested in renewable energy
sources, MUCER encourages their use and emphasizes their benefits by heading in
particular land development projects throughout New Zealand.

Totara Bank, sustainable land development in Wairarapa District, New Zealand, is

one of the long-term projects conducted by MUCER. This scheme is being designed
taking into account energy, environment and also social aspects. In particular, to cover
part of the site electrical requirements, electricity generation on site using renewable
technologies is being studied.

Objective
The scope of this research project is to develop a techno-economic analysis of
distributed generation systems from renewable energy sources and grid interaction
scenarios for Totara Bank. The two main potentials identified in terms of renewable
energy are the wind and solar resources. This survey would enable in particular to
design the best-suited electricity generation mix for the site, to define the trade-off
between electrical requirements of the site and electricity generation costs and also to
evaluate which electrical self-sufficiency level can be achieved.

Methodology
Beforehand, a review of the previous work will be undertaken to set the
background, completed by an on-site visit. To complete the mission, the modelling
capabilities of HOMER software will particularly be used. A review of the software will
therefore be realised in order to evaluate its competences and determine the numerous
inputs needed for the simulation. A data collection will then enable to gather the inputs
but also to draw first conclusions contributing to select some options. Simulations and
analyses of the main results will finally be conducted to contribute as far as possible to
the progress of this long-term project.

11
Part I - Totara Bank Background

I. Project outlines
1. Concept

Totara Bank is a sustainable land development project involved in energy,

environment and social matters. Three main aspects characterize the site development.
First, a minimal energy efficiency of the houses mostly based on solar principle design
is required. Then, part of the electricity needs would be generated on-site from
renewable energy sources. Finally, life in community is encouraged; the objective is to
make people work together while insuring independence.

2. Motivations

One of the main motivations is that there is no such existing project in New
Zealand. The stake is to demonstrate its viability. This is a “thought” project developed
at real scale using both theoretical analysis and data specific to the site. As fossil energy
reserves are running out, energy efficient design in domestic buildings and land
developments become indispensable.

II. Site description

1. Location

Totara Bank site is located in the Wairarapa region in the South East of the North
Island of New Zealand. Situated at 8 km South of Masterton, the land welcoming the
project is a seven-hectare plain limited by close hills on the East side and by the
Ruamahanga river on the West side. On the North and South direction, grass lands are
mostly used for farming.

2. Organization and construction

The seven-hectare land is composed of eight individual housing lots (1200-

2100 m²) and an indivisible land (6 hectares) owned equally by each owner. Four lots
have been sold yet; one of the dwellings is under construction and others are being
designed. Remaining lots are still for sale.

3. Common facilities

Some works intended for the whole community have already been undertaken. A
common house is at owner disposal to provide a shelter before moving in or extra rooms
to invite people. A one-path road giving access to each lot has already been built using
local materials in order not to waste energy in transport and limit the carbon account of
the site. Concerning electricity supply, the site is connected to the national grid in a
single power pole. The power from the national grid would be used in case of on-site
electricity generation insufficiency. The local grid, connecting the houses together,
would power up the dwellings partly from renewable energy sources and avoid
unnecessary energy transport losses. As a consequence, when not being used by one
house the generated electricity would provide other lot needs. Then, an intern electricity

12
balance is to be created. If an excess of electricity is produced, it could possibly be sold
to the national grid. Telephone, water supply as well as water treatments are now
connected. Finally, coppicing trees have been planted in the common land to cover part
of the thermal needs of the site.

III. Previous work

A covenant signed by each owner defines the rules which have to be respected in
the community. They are based on reflections and choices emerging from previous
studies. In his thesis, Andrew Duncan [1] particularly emphasizes the potential for
energy efficiency gains and the optimization of solar resources.

1. Land layout

The land repartition has been optimized by studying the soil composition, the solar
access and orientation in order to use the characteristics in their best way. Thus, the
eight plot contours have been defined and different tree species have been planted in the
area of the terrain most adapted for their growing. The common land is managed by the
whole community and its resources (coppicing trees, nuts, fruits, olives...) are shared
between the owners.

2. Whole solar access planning

The objective was to ensure that each house can have an 85 % solar access. So,
using climate and geographical data and sun path calculations, the solar obstruction
contours giving the maximum heights for any obstacle on site (such as constructions or
vegetation) have been drawn.

3. Optimized eaves shade angles

One principle of passive solar design is to ensure a sufficient solar entrance in the
house during winter (when most needed) while avoiding overheating during summer.
As a consequence, window sizes and orientations as well as eaves dimensions had to be
calculated.
Using temperature records, the period when eaves are wanted to make shade
(hottest months) was known. These considerations needed to be analysed with the sun
path: a compromise between overheating in February and under-heating in November
was chosen in order to set the shading angles. For each window orientation, the
minimum shading angle beyond which the eaves begin to make shade and the maximum
one beyond which the window is totally shaded were calculated.

4. Site thermal self-sufficiency

The covenant defines the house minimal thermal energy performance based on the
Building Performance Index. The principle is “the bigger is the house, the most energy-
efficient it has to be” so that the owners become aware of the space they really need and
do not over-dimension their houses.

Coppicing trees planted on site are expected to cover about 50 % of the thermal
needs. Nevertheless, this rough estimation has to be refined and it is part of Sylvain
Lamige’s contribution [14].

13
 5. Discussion on the site resources

a. Solar

Solar energy is one of the main renewable energy sources for space heating, water
heating but also for electricity generation. This study could be turned to account for
photovoltaic potential analysis. In effect, solar obstruction contours are useful to choose
the well implantation of the PV panels. It is already possible to notice that one solution
could be to set the PV panels on the well exposed house roofs, as we are sure that they
will have a good solar access.

b. Wind

The objective of the thesis was to investigate the solar energy potential of the site
but not to evaluate wind energy potential. Nevertheless, it seems that a quick analysis
has been already done using the weather station wind speed and direction records.

The strongest winds are used to blowing from North-West and the yearly average
speed is about 11 km/h.

14
Part II - Modelling tool review: HOMER

I. What is HOMER?
HOMER is a micro power optimization model developed and regularly improved
by the American National Renewable Energy Laboratory [11]. This software helps to
find the best electricity generation system configuration that is to say the appropriated
technologies, the size and number of each component, also comparing costs and
environmental impacts. It models both conventional and renewable energy technologies
in particular solar photovoltaic and wind turbine which are the options envisaged for
Totara Bank project.

II. Modelling capabilities

1. What does HOMER do?

HOMER is able to evaluate economics and technical feasibility of the system [13].

First, HOMER simulates the working power system by calculating the hourly
energy balance for a year. Hour by hour, HOMER determines the electric demand of the
site and the local electricity supplied by the system. Comparing these energy flows,
HOMER is able to estimate if the configuration is feasible that is to say if the system
can satisfy the electricity requirements.

Then, HOMER optimizes the results. Among the possible configurations defined
by the simulation, HOMER retains the most cost-effective in a table ranked by Net
Present Costs (NPC).

HOMER can realise a sensitivity analysis by modifying some inputs in a range

defined by the user in order to compare different possible scenarios. It is all the more
useful as the parameters are sensitive.

2. How to use HOMER?

The best way to obtain good results is to proceed step by step. It is indispensable to
formulate a question we want HOMER to answer. When the wanted results are
obtained, it is possible to modify the previous question to refine the results. These main
steps are explained in the Getting Started Guide [11].

III. Input requirements

Different information needs to be provided to the software so it can simulate the
model. Electrical demand, component properties, costs and resource availability are the
main kinds of input required [11].

A checklist of the different inputs which would be needed for Totara Bank project
simulation has been established and is presented in Appendix A.

15
Part III - Data collection

Resource data

Objective: Evaluate the renewable energy resource potentials available on Totara Bank
site in order to design the best-suited alternative generation system.

I. Available resource data

First, it is necessary to collect the resource data from locations close to Totara Bank
site (Table 1) as climate characteristics depend directly on geographical data.

Distance from
Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Altitude (m)
Totara Bank (km)
Totara Bank -41.018 175.668 91 -
East Taratahi Aws -41.016 175.622 91 3.8
Table 1: Site and meteorological station geographical characteristics

Among the four meteorological stations located within a radius of 10 km from

Totara Bank site, only East Taratahi Aws (Table 1), the closest, has recent hourly
records (since 1995) for wind and solar resources. Its climate records are gathered in the
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research (NIWA) database [14].
Therefore, the hourly wind speed and direction data as well as the hourly global
solar radiation data were downloaded from 1995 to 2007.

II. Average profiles

Average profiles for a year have then been developed over this thirteen-year period
for both wind and solar resources1.

1. Wind resource

Wind speed and direction are measured by a ten-metre high anemometer.

a. Long-term average hourly wind speed profile

At first, this profile (Figure 1) was developed because HOMER requires an hourly
profile to run the simulation, and it was thought preferable to build some average data in
order not to base all the calculations on a particular year.
This graphic emphasizes the low yearly average wind speed: only 3.18 m/s.

1
There are 8760 hours per non leap year. All the calculations and profiles are reduced to a year of
8760 hours

16
 Figure 1: Long-term average wind speed profiles at anemometer height

Nevertheless, after reflection, a major question came over: “Does hourly average
for wind speed data have a real mean?”
Indeed, this average harmonizes the values around the long-term average, thus
diminishing differences between them. As a consequence, no wind is superior to 7.5 m/s
or inferior to 0.5 m/s in this profile; nevertheless if we look hour by hour during the
thirteen-year period wind speed varies from 0 to 22 m/s. If a profile could be developed
over a 50-year period, the values would all the more tend to the long-term yearly
average. So, an average wind speed profile is totally different from the reality, as a
consequence the wind turbine expected performance will be wrong.
The principle of doing an hourly average for the wind speed can be eventually
surprising as wind is more and less a “random” parameter. Even if there is generally a
daily profile characterised by low wind at night and stronger during the day and
possibly some months known for their high wind speed( Appendix B); there is no
typical profile for each day of the year.

Finally, it has been decided to use a particular year for the simulation with HOMER
because an hourly average is not adapted and would likely introduce more uncertainties.

b. Wind speed frequency distribution curve

9 At anemometer height

In order not to have the problem explained above, the whole hourly data have been
used to build the wind speed frequency distribution curve at anemometer height (Figure
2). The shape of the curve is the one expected according the literature [1].

17
 2500
No. of hours per year of each wind speed band

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0,5 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5 10,5 11,5 12,5 13,5 > 14
Wind speed (m/s)

Figure 2: Long-term wind speed frequency distribution curve at anemometer height2

This diagram shows an important ratio of low wind; indeed, 55 % of the wind has a
speed inferior to 3 m/s. This main information has to be taken into account to select a
wind turbine with an adapted cut-in.

9 At hub height

In addition to this profile drawn with data at anemometer height, it is interesting to

develop it again at the considered wind turbine hub heights (Appendix D) to be more
accurate. Ground-level obstacles such as vegetation, buildings, and topographic features
tend to slow the wind near the surface. Since the effect of these obstacles is reduced
with height, wind speeds tend to increase. This variation is called wind shear.

To evaluate the wind speed at a height different from the one at which the measure
was taken, it is possible to use a mathematical model called the logarithmic profile [13]:
⎛z ⎞
ln⎜⎜ hub ⎟⎟
v( z hub )
= ⎝ 0 ⎠ =A
z
v( z anem ) ⎛z ⎞ Equation 1
ln⎜⎜ anem ⎟⎟
⎝ z0 ⎠
with:
zanem: anemometer height (m) v(zanem): wind speed at zanem (m/s)
zhub: hub height (m) v(zhub): wind speed at zhub (m/s)
z0: Surface roughness length (m)

2
The scale given in abscise corresponds to the centre of each wind speed band (defined by 0 – 1 m/s, 1 –
2 m/s…).

18
 First, it is necessary to evaluate the surface roughness length z0 for the site. This
coefficient is a parameter that characterizes the roughness of the surrounding terrain.
The value z0 = 0.01 m corresponding to a rough pasture was chosen here (Table 2).

z0 (m)
Lawn grass 0.008
Rough pasture 0.01
Fallow field 0.03
Crops 0.05
Few trees 0.1
Many trees, few buildings 0.25
Table 2: Possible values for the surface roughness length z0 [13]

• Using directly the hourly records

The whole wind speed data were calculated at each considered hub height and used
to draw the wind speed frequency distribution curves.

Nevertheless, the “corrected” wind speed frequency distribution curves at each hub
height had not the expected shape. It was thought to obtain the same shape as at
anemometer height but translated towards higher wind speed bands.
Some explanations were found to understand what was wrong with these profiles:
- Graphic observation: It seems that when wind speeds are multiplied by the
“corrective” factor A (superior to 1 because hub heights are superior to the anemometer
one (Equation 1)), most of them changed of wind speed band modifying the distribution
curve shape.
- Data analysis: Checking the data, it appeared very surprisingly that records from East
Taratahi were always the same (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.1, 2.6 m/s...), without intermediate.
Hypothesis 1: Lack of precision or sensitivity of the anemometer.
Hypothesis 2: They are not simple records; some calculations might have been
done with the measures. Normally, one particular hourly data is defined by the average
of six measures realised at ten-minute intervals during the considered hour;
nevertheless, it seems suspicious that the results obtained are always the same.

Finally, as it was not possible to use these curves for the future analysis, another
method was employed.

• Using duration curves

First, the duration curves have been developed for each year at anemometer height
using directly the hourly records. Such curves give the number of hours per year for
which the wind exceeded a given speed. Then, the long-term average duration curve has
been created using these thirteen profiles (Figure 3). It seems a better method to limit
the problem of average explained previously (cf. a)3. This curve has the advantage to be
more continuous, regular and smooth than the annual curves.

3
Wind speeds have been ranked by descending values for each year; as a consequence the
“corresponding” data of each year have been averaged together (e.g. maximum wind speed with
maximum …).

19
 Figure 3: Long-term annual average duration curve at anemometer height

This graphic emphasizes the low ratio of high speed winds; indeed the slope of the
curve is higher when the number of hours is low. Only 1.85 % of the wind blows at a
speed superior to 10 m/s. The maximum speed reached is only 18.6 m/s. Most of the
winds are slow; almost 58 % of the wind has a speed inferior to 3 m/s, result similar to
those observable in Figure 2.

The next step was to develop the average duration curves at selected hub heights
using Equation 1, and the wind speed frequency distribution curves (Figure 4).
2500
No of hours for each wind speed band a

2000

1500 10 m
11 m
19 m
21 m
1000
24.4 m

500

0
0,5 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5 10,5 11,5 12,5 > 13
wind speed (m/s)

Figure 4: Long-term average wind speed frequency distribution curves at different heights

The shape of the wind speed frequency distribution curves matches with the
expected one even if the slopes are not really regular all the more for the highest hubs. It

20
is once again due to the particular data of the hourly wind speed records. This graph
underlines the variation of wind speed with height; winds are indeed stronger with
height. For example, at 24.4 m there are still a lot of slow winds (52 % inferior to 3 m/s)
but less than at 10 m. In addition to that 3.54 % of wind speeds are superior to 10 m/s at
24.4 m against 1.85 % at 10 m. Nevertheless, the wind shear is reduced because the
considered range of heights is small; the variation would be all the more important for
large-scale wind turbines with higher hub.

c. Wind rose

The wind rose has been drawn (Figure 5) in order to visualize the direction,
frequency and speed of the wind.

Dominant winds are from North-East and South-West, following the plain axis.
Nevertheless, the strongest ones are from North-West.
Given that the ranges eastern to Totara Bank site are also following a NE-SW axis, the
main winds recorded at East Taratahi would theoretically also blow on site as they
would not be obstructed by the relief. Nevertheless, as the site is closer to the hills,
some turbulence effects could appear so that the wind could be deflected.

North
Direction: wind blowing from
360
350 6% 10
340 20
330 30
320 5% 40
310 4% 50
300 3% 60
290 70 Wind speed (m/s)
2%
> 12,5
280 1% 80
10,5 - 12,5
West 270 0% 90 East 8,5 - 10,5
260 100 6,5 - 8,5
4,5 - 6,5
250 110 2,5 - 4,5
240 120 0,5 – 2,5
230 130
□ Variable direction (<0,5 m/s) : 7,5%
220 140
210 150 □ Calm (<0,5 m/s): 2,65 %
200 160
190 170
180
South
Drawn using hourly wind speed records
from East Taratahi Aws between 1995 and 2007

Figure 5: Long-term average wind rose at anemometer height

d. Discussion

It is essential to remember that these profiles have been developed according to

East Taratahi wind characteristics. Although Totara Bank site is close to the
meteorological station, wind properties on-site could be different as wind can vary in a
large range with topography. This remark is all the more important as weather stations
tend to be located in places that are not appropriate for wind energy, e.g. in wind
sheltered places [1]. However, these data can give an indication of the site potential and

21
indicate whether it might be worth taking on-site detailed measurements in order to
palliate these uncertainties.
A sensitivity analysis using HOMER would therefore be interesting.

2. Solar resource

The global solar radiation is measured by square metre of horizontal surface.

a. Long-term average hourly global solar radiation profile

This profile (Figure 6) has been developed because HOMER requires an hourly
profile to run the simulation. In order not to base all the calculations on a single year, it
was preferable to build some average data4.

The curve’s envelop indicates the variation of global solar radiation during the year;
it is obviously more important in summer.5

Figure 6: Long term average global solar radiation profiles

According to NIWA records[16], Totara Bank site yearly average global solar
radiation (0.16 kW/m²) is in the middle of solar radiation range (0.12 – 0.19 kW/m²) in
New Zealand (Figure 29, Appendix C).

4
Contrary to wind, an hourly average for global solar radiation does not pose any problem. Even if there
are some variations due to the daily clearness (mist, fog, clouds…), there is a typical profile for each day
of the year as solar radiation directly depends on geographical location and sun path, characteristic of the
time of the year.
5
Let’s remind that the project is developed in the South hemisphere, seasons are therefore opposite to
those of the northern hemisphere.

22
 b. Day-month average global solar radiation profiles

Profiles in Figure 7 will be interesting in the next step to see if they match with the
electrical demand of the site.
0,80

0,70
January
0,60 February
March
Solar radiation (kW/m²)

0,50 April
May
June
0,40
July
August
0,30 September
October
0,20 November
December
0,10

0,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of day (h)

Figure 7: Long-term day-month hourly average global solar radiation

As expected, the global solar radiation is higher during summer months with a
longer duration per day.

Technological data: Costs and performances

Objective: Define the performances and develop cost estimates for a range of
technologies that could possibly be implanted on Totara Bank site for the electrical
generation system.

I. Sources
Apart from one model of wind turbine6, the cost estimates and performances were
found in Glenn Irving’s thesis [8]. This source has been chosen because his project is
also a small-scale grid connected system, implanted in New Zealand, using the same
technologies. The original cost estimates date back at least to 2000, the year of the
thesis publication. In the cost survey, they have been considered from 2000.

In order not to add some subjective judgement, the credibility of the information
found in this thesis is not challenged; it is considered as correct and constitutes the basis
of the analysis. Eventually, extreme data out of range would naturally be eliminated.

6
The Skystream 3.7 wind turbine model has been introduced lately in the analysis; as a consequence it
does not appear in the cost estimates. However, the survey reports its technological performances based
on the manufacturer documentation [23].

23
 Two other sources [2] and [19] were used in the cost estimation analysis to
complete the information and enable the calculations of some figures not directly
available in the thesis.

II. Data requirements

1. Component performance data

First, it is necessary to define the list of components needed for the generation
system working on site. The main components considered in this analyse are defined in
Table 3.

For each technology, different models with particular characteristics and properties
have indeed been considered in order to define a range of technologies usable on site.
This data collection gives a first idea of the components more adapted for the system
studied according to their particularities. All the technical characteristics and properties
needed for the feasibility analysis have to be specified.

Operation Technology Components

Wind turbine Tower, Nacelle, Rotor
Generation
PV panel Module, array support structure
Storage Battery Battery
DC/AC Conversion Inverter Inverter
Table 3: Scope of cost and performance survey for Totara Bank electrical generation

a. Wind turbines

Nine wind turbine models ranging from 1 to 50 kW have been surveyed. The main
characteristics have been summarized in, Table 17, Appendix D.
The rated power is the maximum power output produced by the wind turbine.
The cut-in wind speed is the lowest wind speed at which the wind turbine is able to
generate electricity. As shown in the wind resource analysis, the average wind speed on
site is low. As a consequence, the cut-in is a significant parameter to take into account;
models with lower cut-in could be more adapted to the site.
The rated wind speed corresponds to the wind speed at which the rated power is
reached. This information is also interesting in order to know if the wind turbine will
often work at is maximum power given the wind speed profile; that is to say if its
capacities will be well-used.
The cut-out or shut-down wind speed is the maximum wind speed at which the
wind turbine is designed to shut down in order not to be damaged. This also
characterizes the behaviour of the wind turbine; nevertheless, it will not be decisive in
Totara Bank technological choices as the wind speed is low and will normally not reach
this limit. The maximum hourly wind speed between 1995 and 2007 was 22.1 m/s and
the maximum daily gust was only 34.5 m/s.
The hub height is taken into account in the definition of the available wind resource
to extrapolate the wind speed profile at hub height (cf. Resource data, II.1.b).

24
 In addition to that, the wind speed – power curve has to be drawn (Figure 30,
Appendix E). This graph describes the amount of power generated at each wind speed.
Below the rated wind speed, the power output varies with wind speed; the relationship
depends on the wind turbine design. Then, between the rated wind speed and the cut-out
wind speed, the power output remains roughly constant.

b. Photovoltaic panels

The generation system would also benefit from the solar energy available. Eleven
polycrystalline PV panel models have been studied. Their efficiency (conversion of
solar radiation into electricity) is lower than for mono crystalline modules, but their cost
is much lower. This kind of panels is overtaking the market in commercial applications.
The rating power of the considered components varies in a range between 20 and 83 W.

For a given efficiency, the dimensions of the module directly characterise the
nominal power of the PV panel as the rated output is proportional to the surface.
The efficiency of the PV panels is supposed to be similar for the considered range of
components (≈ 13 %). A linear regression actually underlined the proportional7 relation
between nominal power and surface with a good degree of correlation (R² = 0.9886)
(Figure 31 Appendix F); that justifies the hypothesis of similar efficiency for the
different PV panels.

c. Batteries

Some batteries might be used to store part of the electricity generated on-site. The
characteristics of 17 batteries have been gathered. A large range of ampere hour rating
is therefore considered (from 57 to 1110 Ah) with three main voltages (2, 6 and 12 V).

d. Inverters

As most components generate Direct Current (DC), some inverters are needed to
convert electricity from DC into Alternative Current (AC). The literature took an
inventory of 20 inverters with rating power from 350 to 10000 W and possible voltages
of 12, 24 and 48 V.

2. Cost estimation

First of all, it has to be noticed that the cost data available in the literature surveyed
refer to uninstalled costs (UC) of the components.

a. Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS)

The CBS (Figure 8) is a hierarchic organisation of the different costs necessary to

make the system working; it includes both capital costs occurring once at the start of the
project (Investments) and running costs recurring throughout the project lifetime
(Expenses).

7
The trend line was forced to intercept 0 to guarantee a physical meaning.

25
 Total system costs

Investments Expenses
= =
Capital Costs Running Costs

Indirect Capital Fixed O&M Costs Variable O&M

Direct Capital - Arch & Ing Costs
- General maintenance Costs
-…
-… -…

Equipment Costs Facilities Costs

- Components - Installation
-… -…
Figure 8: Cost Breakdown Structure for Totara Bank project

Equipment costs generally represent a large part of the direct capital, and in Totara
Bank case, they even constitute the biggest part of the capital costs. That is why the cost
estimation is particularly focused on that aspect.

b. Available cost data

Original UC estimates found in the literature are expressed in 2000 New Zealand
Dollars (NZD or NZ$). So, they need to be converted in today’s NZD8 using the
Producer Price Indices (PPI) statistics published by the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development in order to have actualised cost estimates.
⎛ PPI 2006 ⎞
C 2006 = C 2000 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Equation 2
⎝ PPI 2000 ⎠
With:
C2006: Estimate cost of the component in 2006 NZ$
C2000: Known cost of the component in 2000 NZ$
PPI2006: Producer Price Indices for 2006: PPI2006 = 1.376
PPI2000: Producer Price Indices for 2000: PPI2000 = 1.107

c. Capacity function estimates

Capacity function estimates are one mean to evaluate the costs of technologies.
They are also commonly called cost–curves. This method takes into account economies
of scale that is to say the effect of size or capacity on cost. Such functions are defined
by the following equation:
n
⎛S ⎞
C x = C 0 ⎜⎜ x ⎟⎟ Equation 3
⎝ S0 ⎠
with:
Cx: Estimated cost of the component of size Sx
C0: Known cost of the component of size S0
n: Capacity exponent

8
2006 NZ Dollars were used as the more recent PPI available was for 2006.

26
 For each component, capacity function estimates have been developed considering
component UC (Table 4) as a function of the adimensional size ratio S/S0. Such
functions enable then simple calculation of UC according to the component size.

9 Wind turbines

This analysis (Figure 9) shows a significant effect of scale with a capacity exponent
of 0.699 significantly inferior to 1. Although the power is increased tenfold between a
one and a ten-kW wind turbine, UC is only multiplied by five.

1000000
Uninstalled cost (2006 NZ$)

With S0 = 1 kW

0,699
y = 9607,6x
100000 2
R = 0,9124

10000
1 10 100
S/S0
Figure 9: Wind turbine cost estimates and capacity function

9 PV panels

The capacity exponent of 0.5963 (R2 = 0.8755) indicates also an important effect of
scale. As the relation between cost and size is not linear, a 100 W PV panel is here only
four times more expensive than one of 10 W.

Î Economies of scale observed with both generation systems can possibly be

explained by the diminution of fabrication costs with increasing size9. On the other
hand, though some economies can be done by installing components with higher
nominal capacities; it is not necessary to over-dimension the installation: the size has to
correspond with the electrical needs of the site and the characteristics of the models
have to match with the available resources.

9 Batteries

The capacity function curve was developed but the result was not satisfying as the
coefficient of determination was low (R² = 0.5424) that is to say there was no
significant relation between the different data.
As the range of capacity was large, two classes were then defined: small (50-500 Ah)
and large (500 Ah-1200 Ah) scale, but the results were not better.

9
In most cases, a worker or a machine required in a fabrication process will result in the same workforce
cost or operating costs (influencing the uninstalled cost) regardless to the size/capacity of the product.

27
The models studied are manufactured by three different companies (BP solar, Century
and Trojan), therefore another analysis was performed considering each manufacturer as
a class, but the coefficients of determination were still low.
A third and last try was done defining the classes as the possible battery voltages (2, 6
and 12 V), but once again the degrees of correlation were not good.
As it was not possible to develop capacity functions for batteries (at least with the
few available data), specific price figures have been used for the economics.

9 Inverters

The high capacity exponent, close to 1 (R2 = 0.8189) reflects a small effect of scale
for this kind of component. Therefore, the easiest is to choose an inverter commonly
manufactured and buy as many as required.

9 Summary

Key parameters of the capacity function estimates are summarized in Table 4.

No of estimates S0 Smax S0 and Smax Unit C0 (2006 NZ$) n

Wind turbine 8 1 50 kW 9607.6 0.699
PV panel 11 20 83 W 498.7 0.596
Battery 17 57 1110 Ah - -
Inverter 20 350 10000 W 1257 0.921
Table 4: Capacity function parameters

d. Capital, Replacement and 0&M cost estimations

As a first stage, installation, replacement10 and 0&M costs have been defined from
the component UC by applying a percentage (Table 5) estimated thanks to the literature
[2], [19]. As a first rough estimation, the capital cost is simply defined as the sum of UC
and IC. It was supposed that other costs such as architecture and engineering were
included in IC. These estimates developed in particular to run the simulation with
HOMER could then be refined.

Installation Capital Cost Replacement O&M costs Lifetime

Costs (IC) (CC) Costs per year (year)
Wind
30 % UC UC + IC 20 % UC 2 % UC 20
turbine
PV panel CC – UC UC/60 % UC 2 % CC 20
Battery - UC UC 2 % UC 10
Inverter - UC UC 1 % UC 15
Table 5: Definition of the different costs for the survey

9 Uninstalled Cost UC

- Wind turbines: Cost of the wind turbine: tower + nacelle + rotor.

- PV panels: Cost of the PV module.

10
Replacement costs, occurring at the end of life, are also needed for the simulation with HOMER.

28
 9 Capital Cost CC

Batteries and inverters: Approximately equal to UC as the installation costs are

negligible.

9 Replacement Costs

- Wind turbines: Correspond with the change of either the rotor blades, the gearbox or
the generator, a priori the most fragile parts.
- PV panels: Equal to UC because only the module would be changed but the support
structure kept.
- Batteries and inverters: Similar to UC as the quasi totality of the component will be
changed.

Electrical demand

Objective: Evaluate the hourly electrical demand for the site in order to dimension the
generation system so that electrical needs are satisfied.

I. Original electrical demand data

The day-month hourly electrical demand data set itself has been created by Mandy
Armstrong, another member involved in the project, for a baseline house. These original
data for a 146 m² monitored house take into account electrical space heating during
winter months. This electrical thermal load is considered in addition to the usual
electrical load from May to September. Heating schedules are defined from 7 to 9 a.m.
and from 5 to 11 p.m. During these periods, a constant energy of 4.3 kWh/h/house is
assumed.

Nevertheless, for the next steps of the survey it has been preferred to consider the
profile without electrical space heating, called the baseline electrical demand
(Eavg_month_day_hourly). Other scenarios can then be developed from this basis.

II. Electrical demand scaled with HEEP data

As the baseline house is not located in the same region as Totara Bank, and so does
not benefit from the same climate and occupancy behaviour, it has been decided to scale
the baseline data with figures published in HEEP reports [11] for average New Zealand
household electricity consumption.
The idea is to use only the shape of the baseline electrical demand profile provided.

1. Baseline electrical demand data

Using Eavg_month_day_hourly, the average daily consumption for each month

(Eavg_month_day, in kWh/d) has been determined:
E avg _ month _ day = ∑ E avg _ month _ day _ hourly Equation 4
hour

Then, the total annual energy consumption (Etot, in kWh/y) has been calculated:

29
 Etot = ∑ (ndays )
month
month × E avg _month_day Equation 5

where (ndays)month is the number of days in the considered month.

The average daily electrical consumption (Eavg_day, in kWh/d) can then be defined:
E
E avg _ day = tot Equation 6
365
with 365 standing for the number of days per year.

Finally, a ratio (Rmonth) is evaluated for each month in order to keep the shape of the
electrical demand profile:
E avg _ month _ day
Rmonth = Equation 7
E avg _ day

2. HEEP electrical demand data

The following average data have been extracted from HEEP reports.
HEEP average total electrical use: 7800 kWh/y/house
HEEP average electrical space heating: 920 kWh/y/house
ªHEEP average electrical use without electrical space heating:
Etot_HEEP = 6880 kWh/y/house

As previously, the HEEP average daily electrical consumption (Eavg_day_HEEP, in kWh/d)

is given by:
Etot _ HEEP
E avg _ day _ HEEP = Equation 8
365
Using the ratios determined above, it is then possible to calculate the HEEP average
day-month electrical consumption (Eavg_month_day_HEEP, in kWh/d):
E avg _ month _ day _ HEEP = E avg _ day _ HEEP × Rmonth Equation 9

3. Scaled electrical demand data

Finally, the average day-month hourly electrical consumption scaled with HEEP
figures (Eavg_month_day_hourly_HEEP, in kWh/h) is obtained:
E avg _ month _ day _ hourly
E avg _ month _ day _ hourly _ HEEP = × E avg _ month _ day _ HEEP Equation 10
E avg _ month _ day

It is enough to multiply this data by eight in order to obtain the average electrical
load for the whole site11.

III. Electrical space heating alternatives

Two extreme cases can be considered: with and without electrical space heating. In
the first case, it is supposed that space heating for the eight houses is entirely supplied
by electrical appliances. In the second case, space heating is assumed to be provided by

11
As a first stage, electrical consumption of the common house or any other common facilities has been
neglected.

30
any non-electrical appliance. The real scenario would certainly be between these two
extreme possibilities.

1. Electrical demand without electrical space heating

Using directly the data consolidation reported above (cf. II), Eavg_month_day_hourly_HEEP
has been developed for the site showing electrical requirements (Figure 10).
16

14
January
February
12
March
Electrical demand (kW)

April
10
May
June
8
July
August
6
September
October
4
November
December
2

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time of day (h)

Figure 10: Day-month hourly electrical demand profiles for the eight houses
without electrical space heating

These profiles emphasize the two main peaks of consumption, in the morning and
in the evening. These peaks match with the daily house activities. The morning peak
lasts four hours; the evening peak is longer and lasts about six hours. Winter load peaks
are all the more important certainly because of occupancy behaviour change with
climate. The grid load capacity has to be defined to cover the maximum peak demand.

The monthly similarity of the shape is discussed in appendix G.

2. Electrical demand with electrical space heating

To develop such a profile it is sufficient to add the electrical thermal load to the
load without electrical space heating (Figure 10) defined previously.

Space heating requirements have been evaluated by Sylvain Lamige [14]. For this
study, two heating scenarios have been retained to emphasize the possible difference in
electricity profiles12.

12
Heating appliances are considered ideal that is to say no effect of inertia is taken into account. Besides,
their efficiency is supposed to be equal to 1 which physically corresponds with resistance heaters; other
solutions such as heat pumps with a typical COP of 3 could be considered

31
 a. Scenario 1

In this case, space heating is available 24 hours per day and enables to maintain the
interior temperature between 18 and 25°C.

Combining the electrical load without space heating with this thermal load, the day-
month hourly electrical demand profile for the eight houses can be drawn (Figure 11).
35

30 Jan
Feb
25 Mar
Electrical demand (kW)

Apr
20 May
Jun
Jul
15
Aug
Sep
10 Oct
Nov
5 Dec

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time of day

Figure 11: Day-month hourly electrical demand profiles for the eight houses
with electrical space heating [scenario 1]

The peak load is obviously more important when space heating is included: the
maximum demand is 2.5 higher. The impact of electrical thermal load is clear during
winter months and occurs during night and morning. The energy supply is quite
important but distributed over a long period (about 9 h). The shape of the profile during
day and evening is not affected; enough energy is received and stocked so no space
heating is required.

b. Scenario 2

The heating schedule has been defined to maintain interior temperature between 16
and 25°C during the night (from 23 h to 7 h) and between 18 and 25°C otherwise.
This scenario gives the profile below for the eight houses:

32
 90

80
Jan
70 Feb
Mar
Electrical demand (kW)

60 Apr
May
50
Jun
40 Jul
Aug
30 Sep
Oct
20 Nov
Dec
10

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time of day
Figure 12: Day-month hourly electrical demand profiles for the eight houses
with electrical space heating [scenario 2]

The distribution is totally different. The peak load is localized but requires a huge
amount of power (2.5 higher than with the previous schedule). This thermal load has an
influence on the electrical demand during winter early morning.

33
Part IV - Result analysis

Preliminary Results

Objective: Combine and exploit different information gathered during the data
collection in order to establish some results concerning expected performances in Totara
Bank conditions.

I. Wind turbine energy output

1. Energy distribution curve and annual yield

It is possible to draw the annual wind energy distribution curve (Figure 13) and to
evaluate the annual yield (Figure 14) of each wind turbine using both wind speed
frequency distribution curves (developed in Resource data, II.1.b.) and wind speed –
power curves (Appendix E).
Annual energy from each wind speed band (kWh)

3000 9000

8000
2500
7000 Soma 1000
Skystream 3.7
2000 6000
WT 2500
5000 Whisper 3000
1500 WT 6000
4000 BWC Excel 10
Jacobs 29-20
1000 3000
Enercon E-12
2000
500 AOC 15-50
1000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Wind speed (m/s)

Figure 13: Annual wind energy distribution curves for different wind turbine models

The irregular shape is once again caused by the particular recorded values discussed
in Resource data, II.1.b.

There is logically no energy output for wind speeds inferior to the cut-in. For a
given wind speed, each curve reaches a maximum which emphasizes the optimal
combination between the amount of wind and the corresponding power output. Above a
certain wind speed (15 – 17 m/s), there is no more energy output because such wind
speeds are too rare.

34
 24.4
45000
Soma 1000
32

Energy (kWh)aaa
30000 Skystream 3.7
20000 WT 2500
24
Whisper 3000
15000
WT 6000
24 4 BWC Excel 10
10000
21 Jacobs 29-20
19
5000 11 Enercon E-12
19 10 A0C 15-50
0
Frequency distribution at zanem Frequency distribution at zhub
On the top of the columns: hub heights (m)
Figure 14: Annual yield for different wind turbine models

Figure 14 shows the annual yield which could be expected for each wind turbine
model. It is necessary to compare it to the electrical consumption. Etot_HEEP is equal to
6800 kWh/y/house; that is to say the annual output of the WT6000 could just cover one
house electrical needs. Moreover, it is not sufficient to reason on annual basis, it would
be interesting to proceed hour by hour to see if the electricity generated on site matches
with the requirements of the moment. Otherwise, if an excess of electricity is produced
then its storage or sale to the grid must be considered; on the contrary, if there is a lack
of energy, it has to be bought from the national grid.
Obviously, different scenarios concerning the choice and number of the wind
turbine models are also possible. The cost of the system is also a parameter to take into
account to select the optimal configuration.
HOMER can deal with these points presented in Simulation Results.

Influence of turbine height on the energy output is also visible in Figure 14. Indeed,
the left-hand-side of the diagram was built using the original wind speeds at
anemometer height and the right-hand-side at adequate hub heights. Results are
significantly different above all for the highest wind turbines; expected energy outputs
are considerably increased, for example by more than 50 % for the Enercon E-12. Thus
it was worth to persist in developing wind profiles at hub height.

2. Capacity Factor

Regarding Figure 14, the installation of a wind turbine able to cover the needs
could be tempting, but the real objective is to select the one most adapted to the site
conditions. The Capacity Factor (CF) is a figure of merit that measures how well the
system is utilized to deliver the maximum possible energy. The higher CF is the more
adapted to the site the wind turbine is in term of energy [19].
Actual energy output
CF = Equation 11
Rated power × 8760
with:
Actual energy output in kWh
Rated power in kW
8760 the number of hours per year

35
 Wind turbine model Capacity factor (%)
Soma 1000 17.6
Skystream 3.7 9.9
WT 2500 9.5
Whisper 3000 12.3
WT6000 13.2
BWC Excel 10 10.5
Jacobs 29-20 9.6
Enercon E-12 8.0
A0C 15-50 10.3
Table 6: Capacity factors for different wind turbine models

Given that it is not possible to consider all the models in the simulation, Soma 1000
and WT6000 models characterized by their higher capacity factors (Table 6) will be
analysed in priority. They have the best energy potential for the site… there is still to
see if their installation is economically viable.

II. PV panel energy output

Given a PV panel of surface S and slope β, it is possible to evaluate the day-month
hourly average power output using the hourly average global solar radiation data.

Given that the radiation is expressed in kilowatt per square meter of horizontal
surface, it is first necessary to calculate the equivalent horizontal surface of the PV
panels A intercepted by the solar rays for each hour of the year. To do so, the solar
altitude angle α is needed and was taken from Sylvain Lamige’s model for Totara
Bank13. Then, for each hour, A is determined geometrically with the following equation:
⎛ sin β ⎞
A = S ⎜ cos β + ⎟ Equation 12
⎝ tan α ⎠
with:
A: equivalent horizontal surface of the PV panels intercepted by the solar rays (m²)
S: surface of the PV panels (m²)
α: solar altitude angle (°)
β: slope of the PV panels (°)

Finally, the power received by the PV panel is defined by multiplying A by the

hourly global solar radiation (Figure 15). The hourly average power output is then
obtained by multiplying these values by the efficiency of the PV panels.

13
In order not to overestimate the power output, some precautions have been taken. When the altitude
angle α is inferior to the skyline angle [1], in other term when the sun is obstructed by the relief, the solar
radiation is supposed to be nil. Furthermore, in the covenant, the solar obstruction contours have been
defined to insure a solar access between 8.30 am and 4.30 pm; otherwise the solar radiation is also
considered to be nil.

36
 0,9

0,8 January
February
0,7 March
April
0,6
Power (kW/m²)

May
0,5 June
July
0,4
August
0,3 September
October
0,2 November
0,1 December
Year average
0,0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of day (h)
Figure 15: Day-month hourly average global solar radiation received by a PV panel for β= 41°

Moreover, the annual yield can be evaluated. A PV panel surface of slope β = 41°
well-installed on Totara Bank site would receive on average 1902 kWh/m²/year.
Assuming a common efficiency of η = 13 %, 247 kWh/m²/year can be expected.

Simulation Results

Objective: Define the best suited electricity generation mix for Totara Bank site which
enables to satisfy the load requirements taking into account the cost of electricity
generation, and evaluate the electrical self-sufficiency level that can be achieved.

This step of the study consists in analysing the optimal electricity generation system
for different variations in parameter assumptions. To do so, it is first preferable to
define the baseline conditions representative of Totara Bank. Then, it is possible to
make a sensitivity analysis, modifying different parameters one after the other.

It must be kept in mind that the results provided by HOMER are based on
economic considerations; electricity generation system alternatives are ranked by Net
Present Costs (NPC) and the most cost-effective is considered as the optimal
configuration.

I. Baseline conditions
This scenario was established as a reference for Totara Bank recording the site
characteristics, reported in Appendix I. Given these conditions (resources, electrical
demand, price of electricity purchased from the grid…), is it worth to install a
Distributed Generation system (DG) on site?

1. Choice of the wind turbine

Wind turbine models were retained following Preliminary Results (I.2.). However,
according to the manufacturer documentation, output for the WT6000 can be either

37
direct or alternative. The objective here is to compare the performance of the WT6000
with AC or DC output and select the most adapted, so only the two possible WT6000
models were considered. Results of the simulation are given in Table 7.

Table 7: Optimal feasible configurations – Comparison of WT6000 model output options

According to the optimization results, only the WT6000 with an AC output is

suggested in the possible DG; the DC model never appears. The first one seems
therefore more adapted and will be selected for the next step of the survey.

Finally, the model configuration has been defined and is presented below:

Figure 16: Totara Bank model

2. Optimal system configuration

Baseline conditions are now fixed. It is therefore possible to discuss about the first
results of the simulation. In these conditions, is a DG competitive on site?

Table 8 reports the optimal feasible configurations for the generation system,
ranked by NPC.

Table 8: Optimal feasible configurations in the baseline conditions

38
 In economics term, a DG is not competitive; the best configuration is a grid-only
system. The most cost-effective DG, a Grid/Wind configuration composed of one
Soma 1000 (third line in Table 8), is 25 % more expensive (in terms of NPC) than a
grid-only system. In this case, the renewable fraction represents only 3 % of the system.

3. Converter capacity

A particular interest must be given to the capacity search space of the components.
Due to a lack of time, the converter possible capacities have not been refined and
optimized, only two have been considered: 5 and 10 kW. When a converter is required,
the smallest one is always chosen because it is less expensive and therefore tends to a
more cost-effective option.
It appears that smaller capacities suggested are usually selected for the same reason
even if part of the electricity generated on site is lost because the inverter is under
dimensioned and cannot convert it to AC. Given a DG, there is in reality a trade-off
between the price of electricity purchased from the grid (Cgrid) and the converter size.
To refine the model, an optimization of the converter capacity should be
considered.

II. Sensitivity analysis

The influence of different parameters14 is studied here; but this is in any case an
exhaustive survey. These sensitivity variables have been chosen in particular because
they emerge from estimations and/or are likely to vary in space or time.

1. Purchase price of electricity (Cgrid)

As seen previously, the actual Cgrid (0.26 NZ$/kWh) does not allow any DG to be
competitive. Beyond which Cgrid does the installation of a DG make sense?

Table 9 synthesizes the optimal systems considering different Cgrid assumptions:

Table 9: Sensitivity results according to different Cgrid assumptions

A DG only becomes worth for Cgrid equal to 0.87 NZ$/kWh that is to say for a price
almost 3.3 times higher than today. Such a consideration is not realistic: even if Cgrid
rises throughout the years, it will hopefully never reach this limit in the near future.
Even considering such a range of Cgrid, a DG including PV panels does not appear
in the alternatives; they are more expensive than wind turbines.

14
When not précised, the values of the parameters are equal to those defined in the baseline conditions.

39
 Î Different simulations demonstrated that with the actual low Cgrid a DG is never
worth even playing with other parameters, so it has been decided that for the different
sensitivity analyses Cgrid would always be the second dimension parameter. We are
aware that not realistic values of Cgrid have been considered; still this way was chosen to
study the influence of other parameters (which could not be observed otherwise)
assuming that variations would be similar in conditions more favourable to DG.

2. Project lifetime

The project lifetime is taken into account in most economic indicator calculations,
thus a modification of the project lifetime may probably affect the optimal system
configuration. What is the influence of the project lifetime on the optimal design?

Figure 17 displays the most adapted DG according to Cgrid and to the lifetime:

Figure 17: Optimal system mixes according to Cgrid and to the project lifetime

Bearing in mind the actual Cgrid, whatever the project lifetime is, there is no effect
on the configuration: the optimal one is still grid-only system.
It is nevertheless possible to see a slight influence if Cgrid is high enough. In this
case, under 50 years, the longer is the lifetime, the more interesting becomes a DG.
Beyond 50 years, the lifetime has no more influence.

In case a DG is worth, what is the payback time to make it advantageous in

comparison to a grid-only system?
If Cgrid is equal to 0.87 NZ$/kWh, the simple payback time is about 10 years for a
50-year lifetime. The discounted payback, which takes into account the interest rate, is

40
obviously longer, about 49 years, which is approximately the limit to have a return on
investment. The interest rate has therefore an impact on the feasibility of the project.

3. Interest rate

Interest rate is an important factor in economic analyses, it often determines

whether the project investment is worth or not. As it is used to fluctuating, it seemed
interesting to study this parameter.

Obviously, the lower the interest rate is, the more worthwhile a DG is. But, even
with an interest rate of 6 %, Cgrid has to be superior to 0.6 NZ$/kWh to enable a DG to
be competitive.

a. Payback time

Nevertheless if the interest rate is too low (inferior to interest rates which could be
offered by banks), nobody will invest because it is less risky to keep the money in a
bank, except maybe if the payback time is short and inferior to the minimum time
required in bank investment.

But, this seems not the case: for a 6 % interest rate, even if Cgrid is equal to
0.72 NZ$/kWh, the discounted payback time for a Grid/Wind DG composed of one
WT6000 in comparison to the grid only is more that 25 years.

Figure 18: Simple and discounted paybacks (annihilation of cumulative cash flow)

As encountered in most DG, no payback means that the installation conducts to

extra-expenses over the project lifetime in comparison to a grid-only system.

b. Internal Rate of Return

The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is another economic indicator which summarizes
the merits of the project. It defines the maximum interest rate possibly applicable so that
the project is still worth. An investment is acceptable if the IRR exceeds the interest rate
[21].

41
 Cgrid (NZ$/kWh) 0.26 0.286 0.312 0.338 0.39 0.52 0.72
IRR (%) n/a n/a n/a 0.363 1.64 4.27 7.67
Table 10: IRR according to Cgrid for a Grid/Wind DG composed of one WT6000

Keeping the same system configuration than in a., Table 10 displays that if Cgrid is
equal to 0.72 NZ$/kWh, the IRR of the DG (in comparison to the grid-only system) is
equal to 7.67 %. As a consequence, if the interest rate is inferior to 7.67 % the DG
installation is worth. The absence of IRR for the three smallest Cgrid studied means that
whatever the interest rate is, the investment is not acceptable.

4. Average wind speed

The average hourly wind speed profile has been developed using records from East
Taratahi meteorological station and not using directly measures on site. As wind tends
to vary in a large range with topography, a sensitivity analysis on the average wind
speed has been led. What is the influence of the annual average wind speed on the
optimal system configuration? In case a DG is worth, what is the best generation mix?

A priori, the wind is used to blowing slightly stronger on Totara Bank than at East
Taratahi, with an annual average wind speed tending to be 0.5 to 1 m/s higher [Andrew
Duncan, personal communication, July 2008]. As a consequence, these two values were
retained for the analysis.

Figure 19: Optimal system configurations according to Cgrid and to the annual average wind speed

A DG is not worth even if the annual average wind speed is 1 m/s higher than the
one calculated from meteorological records (3.18 m/s). Still wind speed influence can

42
be seen playing with Cgrid: if it is at least double, a Grid/Wind DG becomes interesting
providing a sufficient wind speed.

In the range of variation studied, in case a DG is the lowest cost option, it is

composed of one WT6000. It is then interesting to see the evolution of the WT6000
performances according to the annual average wind speed which can justify the
competitiveness of the DG (Table 11).

Annual average Hours of Total production Levelized cost of energy

wind speed (m/s) operation (h/y) (kWh/y) (NZ$/kWh)
3.18 5572 6791 0.801
3.68 5572 9250 0.588
4.18 6532 11756 0.463
Table 11: WT6000 wind turbine performances according to the annual average wind speed

When the annual average wind speed is higher, the cut-in impact is reduced and
therefore the total energy production is more important (36 % of increase for an average
0.5 m/s higher and 73 % of increase for an average 1 m/s higher). This effect is all the
more important as the average wind speed on site is low. As a consequence, the wind
turbine levelized Cost of Energy (COE) is cheaper because the capital, replacement and
0&M costs are the same but the electricity production is increased. Then, as soon as the
levelized COE for the whole DG is inferior to Cgrid, the DG becomes worth.

5. Component costs

Component costs have been evaluated developing cost estimations based on data
from the literature, enabling to define a range of costs, but not exact. Moreover, the
general trend over the last decades emphasizes a reduction in renewable technology
costs (Figure 20 [17]) [19]. For these reasons, a sensitivity analysis on the component
costs has been realised. Renewable technologies are still expensive in comparison to
traditional technologies; does a reduction in their cost make a DG more affordable?

Figure 20: Renewable energy cost trends (in constant 2000 US$)

Using in particular some study cases [8] and other data [8], a range of capital cost
multipliers has been defined. For wind turbines, a 10 % reduction in capital,
replacement and 0&M costs has been considered; for PV panels, different cost
multipliers from 0.5 have been defined.

But, for the considered range of Cgrid (up to 0.72 NZ$/kWh), whatever the cost
multipliers are, a DG is never worth.
Therefore, it is natural to ask which cost multipliers are necessary to make a DG
worth (considering the same range of Cgrid).

43
 a. Wind turbine

Figure 21 shows that the wind turbine cost multiplier needs to be about 0.25 to
make a Grid/Wind DG competitive at today’s price. A 75 % grant, for example from the
government, would make such a DG attractive.

Figure 21: Optimal system configuration according to Cgrid and to the wind turbine cost multiplier

b. PV panels

Results for PV panels (Figure 22) are quite different. Even with a not realistic cost
multiplier of 0.1, a DG including PV is not worth at the actual Cgrid. A DG including PV
panels does not seem economically viable.
In this case, a grant would make such a DG more affordable reducing extra-
expenses in comparison to a grid-only system but would never make it cost-efficient.

44
 Figure 22: Optimal system configuration according to Cgrid and to the PV cost multiplier15

6. Electrical demand

a. Variation of the average electrical demand

The electrical demand data used for the simulation have been scaled with figures
published in HEEP reports. Nevertheless, the behaviour towards electricity uses is really
different among people. Therefore, variations of electrical demand in a range of ± 50 %
in comparison to the national Eavg_day_HEEP have been considered. The objective is to see
whether a lower or higher electrical demand influence the optimal system configuration.

An increase of the electrical demand tends to play in favour of a DG. It is all the
more proved for smaller electrical demand. In effect, the slope of the interface grid-only
– DG is higher for lower electrical demand (inferior to 120 kWh/d).
But, even with an electrical demand equal to 1.5 times the Eavg_day_HEEP, Cgrid would
need to be superior to 0.85 NZ$/kWh to make the DG worth.

15
If a converter cost multiplier is considered at the same time, results are similar, being just translated
towards smaller Cgrid.

45
 Figure 23: Optimal system configuration according to Cgrid and to the daily average consumption

b. Electrical space heating

Until now, no electrical space heating was considered in the analyses. The objective
is to see if the addition of electrical space heating to the previous load influences the
generation system configuration. The two scenarios retained were defined in Electrical
demand, III.2.

9 Scenario 1

The optimal feasible configurations are exactly the same as those presented in
Table 8; the most cost-effective option is again the grid-only system. The NPC are
higher only because the electrical consumption is bigger and as a consequence more
electricity has to be purchased from the grid.

9 Scenario 2

Even if the electrical demand profile is totally different from both the baseline
conditions and scenario 1, the same results are observed again.

9 Conclusion

Finally, the consideration of electrical space heating in addition to the baseline

electrical consumption does not have any influence on the DG configuration in this
study even with different schedules.

46
 III. Optimistic scenario
Until now, parameters have been studied separately, giving poor results in terms of
DG. We can wonder what happen if several parameters vary at the same time, or put in
other words, would the conclusion be the same in an optimistic scenario. The objective
of this simulation is to lump together the different parameters studied before. It is
possible to consider the most suitable scenario selecting the optimal values of the
parameters favourable to a DG.

Unfortunately, even considering the most optimistic scenario for renewable

technologies, results are again disappointing: at the current Cgrid, no DG is worth. Cgrid
would have to increase of at least 30 % to make a DG viable; such a raise is not
expected in the near future.

Î Conclusion: Even considering variations of the different parameter values, a

DG is unfortunately never economically worth at the actual Cgrid. Its price would have to
be exorbitant to justify a DG installation.

IV. Minimum renewable fraction

A priori, if only economics are considered, a DG is not competitive. Nevertheless,
electricity generation from renewable energy sources seems part of Totara Bank
concept. What is the best DG configuration if a minimum Renewable Fraction (RF) is
imposed on site? What is therefore the levelized COE? What is the increase of NPC in
comparison to a grid-only configuration? Is there any excess of electricity generated that
is sold to the grid in this case?

First, it is necessary to give the definition (1) HOMER uses to calculate the RF of
the system.
a+b+c
RF(1) =
a+b+c+ B
with a, b, c and B as shown in Figure 24.

PV output a Inverter losses

Soma 1000 b
output A
C Consumption
WT6000 output c B
D

Grid purchases Grid sales

Figure 24: Sankey diagram: electricity balance over a year16

16
No electricity storage in batteries is considered;
A = η (a + b) + c where η is the converter efficiency.

47
 1. Number of wind turbines

Until at least 20 % of RF imposed, the optimal DG is a Grid/Wind combination.

From a minimum RF of at least 5 % to 12 %, the optimal DG is composed of one
WT6000 wind turbine; beyond 12 %, two WT6000 should be installed.

a. Levelized Cost of Energy

In the baseline conditions, the DG levelized COE with a minimum RF imposed is

higher than for a grid-only system. For example, it is equal to 0.407 NZ$/kWh if at least
20 % of renewable is imposed (Figure 25). Note that the levelized COE is similar for
different minimum RF because the same combination of technologies is used in these
cases (same optimal DG).

Figure 25: System levelized COE according to the minimum RF and the average wind speed

b. Net Present Cost

Considering the baseline conditions,

- If the minimum RF is between 5 % and 12 %, the NPC is 28 % higher than for a grid-
only system.
- If the minimum RF is between 12 % and 20 %, the NPC is 56.5% higher than for a
grid-only system.

c. Grid sales

Beyond a RF of 12 %, a small excess of electricity is produced and sold to the grid,

but it is negligible: for a minimum RF between 0.12 and 0.2, only 2107 kWh/y are sold.
At the current price of 0.04 NZ$/kWh, that represents 85 NZ$/year. The sales represents
only 4 % of the electricity available on the AC bus (i.e. A+B); but it is all the same
15 % of the WT6000 production. This last figure underlines the fact that the wind

48
turbine generation does not systematically temporally match with the electrical demand.
During days sufficiently windy to enable the wind turbines to generate electricity, the
maximum output is often in the middle of the day when electrical demand is low. So,
the electricity produced on site tends to exceed the load requirement and therefore has to
be sent to the grid (as no storage is foreseen in this scenario). Figure 26 illustrates this
remark displaying the daily hourly electricity profiles characteristic of a first day of
January.
– Electrical demand
– WT6000 output
– Grid purchases
– Grid sales
Power (kW)

Figure 26: Optimal DG hourly electrical profiles on January 1st for a minimum RF of 20 %

d. Discussion

The higher the minimum RF is, the more renewable technologies are needed. To
reach a RF of at least 20 %, a DG with two WT6000 was shown to be the more
competitive. But, is it realistic to install more than one wind turbine on Totara Bank?
What would be the optimal DG if the number of wind turbine was constraint to a
maximum of one?

For a minimum RF between 5 and 12 %, the DG Grid/Wind with one WT6000 is

still optimal. Beyond 12 %, the DG Grid/Wind/PV composed of one WT6000 and 5 kW
of PV panels is the optimal configuration suiting the constraint.

2. Discussion about the renewable fraction definition

Other definitions, maybe more physical, could have been used to express the RF.
Here are gathered some suggestions.

•
In comparison to the consumption, which proportion of electricity
A
available on the AC bus the on-site generation system is able to produce (2)? RF( 2 ) =
C
gives an idea of the site electrical self-sufficiency, but, even if it is equal to 100 %, the

49
connection to the grid is still indispensable to play as a buffer when generation on-site
and consumption temporally do not match.
It is possible to define this proportion for each component separately RF(2’). Given the
electrical demand and the resource, this proportion is fixed for each component (Table
12) and does not depend on the system configuration.

Component WT6000 Soma 1000 1 kW PV panel

c ηb ηa
RF(2’) (%) = 12.2 = 2.5 = 1.9
C C C
Table 12: Proportion of electrical consumption generated by each component

• Which proportion of the electricity available on the AC bus does come

A
from on-site generation (3)? RF( 3) =
A+ B
• Which proportion of the electrical consumption does effectively come from
A− D
on-site generation (4) (Figure 27)? RF( 4) = . Bearing in mind that all grid sales
C
come from electricity generated on-site, the difference with definition (2) is that an RF(4)
of 100 % means this time that the site can be off-grid, the connection to the grid
becomes useless in term of purchase (though it still can be advantageous to sell possible
excess of electricity).
C
The relation between RF(1) and RF(4) is given by RF(1) = . According to the
1 − RF( 4 ) + C
level of autonomy RF(4) wanted to be achieved for the site, it is possible to evaluate the
minimum RF(1) which has to be imposed in HOMER.
Electricity Electricity purchased
generated on site ? from the grid

Figure 27: Illustration of RF(4) definition

In addition to the pure analysis of the results, this paragraph highlights the
importance of indicator definitions. It is necessary to be vigilant (investment,
advertising…): without a clear definition, a term can be interpreted differently among
people.

Let’s take an example to illustrate the differences, say a particular Grid/Wind DG

composed of one WT6000 and three Soma 1000. Table 13 reports useful values (picked
up from HOMER’s results) to calculate the different fractions defined previously.

50
 Electrical WT6000 Three Soma Electricity Electricity sold
demand output 1000 output purchased from the to the grid
(kWh/y) (kWh/y) (kWh/y) grid (kWh/y) (kWh/y)
55480 6791 4595 45468 915
Table 13: Electrical balance for a particular DG composed of one WT6000 and three Soma 1000

The inverter efficiency is 0.9, so the energy really available on the AC bus
produced by the three Soma 1000 is reduced to 4595 × 0.9 = 4135.5 kWh/y.

Table 14 presents the RF calculated according to the four definitions suggested.

Definition (1) (2) (3) (4)

Renewable Fraction (%) 20.0 19.7 19.4 18.0
Table 14: Renewable fraction according to several definitions

Î Conclusion: A DG system from renewable energy sources is obviously feasible

but costly. The point is to know if either the economical consideration or the DG
installation willpower prevails.

V. Net metering versus double metering

Nowadays, net metering is not a common practise in New Zealand, it applies only
for concessions. The objective is to know if it is worth to try to obtain a particular
agreement for Totara Bank.

The principle of net metering is based on energy flows. A single meter counts
positive the purchases and negative the sales; at the end of the period (either monthly or
annually), if the balance is positive the owner has to pay the utility for this amount of
electricity (net purchased) times the purchase tariff otherwise the utility has to give him
money back for this quantity of electricity (net sold) times the sale tariff.
It is different from the double metering, currently applied, for which the balance is
directly based on money flow consideration; there are two meters in that case: one for
the purchases and one for the sales. At the end of the period, the owner has to pay the
utility for the total amount of electricity purchased times the purchase tariff and the
utility owes him the total amount of electricity sold times the sale tariff.

Net metering is all the more interesting as sales are considerable (as long as the
purchase price is superior to the sale price). Nevertheless, it has been shown that even
imposing a minimum RF of 20 %, there is a negligible amount of electricity sold. Let’s
consider again the Grid/Wind DG composed of two WT6000 able to provide a RF of at
least 20 % (Table 15).

Purchase price ($/kWh) Sale price ($/kWh) Purchases (kWh/y) Sales (kWh/y)
0.26 0.04 55480 2107
Table 15: Purchase & sale price and quantity – Grid/Wind DG with two WT6000

In the actual conditions of double metering 14340 NZ$/y have to be paid to the
utility. If the annual net metering was available 13877 NZ$/y should be paid to the
utility (Table 16). The net metering option would reduce the bill by only 3 %. As not

51
much electricity is sold, it is probably not worth trying to obtain a concession to have
access to net metering on site.

Calculation Price (NZ$)

Double metering 0.26 × 55480 – 0.04 × 2107 14340
Net metering (55480 – 2107) × 0.26 13877
Table 16: Electricity bills with double or net metering

52
 Conclusion
Even if it is disappointing even frustrating, global results are a priori pessimistic
about the competitiveness of a distributed generation system on Totara Bank site. In
effect, given the actual conditions of the site, a DG does not seem the optimal solution
in term of cost-effectiveness. The traditional grid-only configuration is more
economical.

It is nevertheless possible to wish to impose a minimum renewable fraction on site

and install a DG even if it will be more costly. This option seems in agreement with
Totara Bank concept and emphasizes the willpower to integrate renewable energy
technologies as part of the sustainable land development. In case of a DG installation,
the wind resource would be exploited in priority and the solar potential would be used
to achieve a higher level of electrical self-sufficiency if the number of wind turbine is
limited. In the considered configuration, the WT6000 wind turbine seems a priori more
adapted than the Soma 1000.

In any case, the generation system is reliant on the national grid. The total electrical
autonomy cannot be envisaged; however, a certain level of self-sufficiency can be
reached if wished, but unfortunately it will be more expensive than a grid-only system.

This phase of simulation and analysis was difficult to handle because of the large
number of parameters influencing the results. It is possible to make a sensitivity
analysis on so many variables that selecting and combining the most relevant is not an
easy task. Moreover, few global conclusions can be directly drawn because most of the
time they are specific to a particular system configuration. HOMER displays an
incredible amount and variety of results (graphs, tables, performance, economics…);
reflection is therefore required to synthesise them and pick up the most useful.

The consequent step of data collection is really important; a lot of time and care
have to be spent to gather the inputs required. The more the data are detailed and
accurate, the more the model results will be relevant and significant. A particular
attention has to be paid on the cost estimation as HOMER bases all its results on
economical calculations. An important part of this research project was dedicated to
lump the four main kinds of data (resources, electrical demand, technological and
economic data); running simulations played only a short part. Nevertheless, the short-
term of the involvement did not allow to refine the data as far as wanted; it was
preferred to go through the model using this first base (which can still be improved) so
as to be able to exploit the results and draw some conclusions.

A lot of parameters and combinations intern to the simulation and many other
external aspects have not been considered; a deepest analysis merits to be led.
In particular, though the possibility to have some grants (for example from the
government) to support such initiatives has not been studied, it must be a decisive
parameter, making a DG viable or at least more affordable.

Once the generation system will be chosen, ViPOR (another modelling tool) could
be used to determine the appropriated intern grid design drawing the electrification
system map with consideration of local terrain.

53
 References

[1] BOYLE Godfrey (edited by), Renewable Energy: power for a sustainable future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press in association with the Open University, 1996,
479 p. ISBN 0-19-856452-X and 0198564511 (pbk).
[2] Centre of Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury. CAE Comments 02:
Distributed generation, a study of opportunities. Christchurch, New Zealand,
2003, 36 p. ISBN 0-908993-33-1
[3] Danish Wind Industry Association. Danish Wind Industry Association – Guided
tour on wind energy [On-line]. Available at:
<http://www.windpower.org/en/tour.htm>, accessed May – June – July 2008
[4] DIAF S., NOTTON G., BELHAMEL M., HADDADI M., LOUCHE A. Design
and techno-economical optimization for hybrid PV/wind system under various
meteorological conditions. Elsevier Ltd, 2008. Available at:
<www.sciencedirect.com>. ISBN: 968-987
[5] DUFFIE John A. & BECKMAN William A. Solar engineering of thermal
processes, Third Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
2006, 908 p. ISBN-10: 0-471-69867-9 and ISBN-13: 978-0-471-69867-8
[6] DUNCAN Andrew. Selected solar design tools for sustainable residential land
development. Thesis (M. E.). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey
University, 2005, 120 p.
[7] DUNCAN Andrew. TotaraBank [Online]. Available at:
<http://duncans.org.uk/totarabank/index.htm>, accessed April 2008.
[8] EECA. Renewable energy Fact sheet 4 Photovoltaics, 2008. Available
at:<http://www.eeca.govt.nz/eeca-library/renewable-energy/fact-
sheet/photovoltaics-jun-08.pdf>. ISSN 1176-8584
[9] HESPUL. Hespul – Coûts et financement [Online]. Available at:
<http://www.hespul.org/Couts-et-financement.html>, accessed August 2008
[10] IRVING Glenn. Community owned and operated renewable energy schemes in
rural New Zealand. Thesis (M. App. Sc.). Palmerston North: Massey University
2000, various paging.
[11] ISAACS N.P., CAMILLERI M., FRENCH L., POLLARD A.,SAVILLE-SMITH
K., FRASER R., ROSSOUW P.& JOWETT J. Energy use in New Zealand
households – Report on the Year 10 Analysis for the Household Energy End-use
Project (HEEP). Study report N° SR 155. Porirua, New Zealand: BRANZ Ltd.,
118 p, 2006. ISSN 0113-3675.
[12] LAMBERT Tom & GILMAN Paul. HOMER Help [HOMER software].2004
[13] LAMBERT Tom. Micropower system modeling with HOMER. In: FARRET
Felix A. & GODOY SIMOES M. Integration of alternative sources of energy.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, p 379-418.
[14] LAMIGE Sylvain. Thermal analysis of building design and sitting options. 4th
year research project report. Lyon, France & Auckland, New Zealand: INSA &
Massey University, 2008.

54
[15] NIWA Cliflo. Welcome to the climate database [Online]. Available at:
<http://cliflo.n iwa.co.nz/>, accessed May – June 2008
[16] NIWA. Solar energy [Online]. Available at:
<http://www.niwa.cri.nz/__data/assets/image/0017/50516/renewable4_large.gif>,
accessed May 2008
[17] NREL. Energy analysis home page [Online]. Available at
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2002.ppt >, accessed July 2008.
[18] NREL. HOMER – Analysis of micropower system options website [Online].
Available at: < https://analysis.nrel.gov/homer/>, accessed May 2008
[19] New Zealand Government, Ministry for the Environment Manatū Mō Te Taiao.
Guidance for voluntary, corporate greenhouse gas reporting - Data and methods
for the 2006 calendar. Wellington, New Zealand, 2008, 26 p. Available at:
<www.mfe.gov.nz>. ISBN: 978-0-478-30218-9 (Online).
[20] PATEL Munkund R. Wind and Solar power system design, analysis and
operation. Second Edition. New York, USA: Taylor & Francis, 2006, 448 p. ISBN
0-8493-1570-0
[21] ROSS Stephen A., TRAYLER Rowan, BIRD Ron, WESTERFIELD Randolph
W. & JORDAN Bradford D. Essential of corporate finance. First Australian and
New Zealand Edition. New South Wales, Australia: McGRAW-Hill Australia Pty
Limited, 2008, 598 p. ISBN-13: 978-0-07-471670-0 & ISBN-10: 0-07-471670-0
[22] Solarbuzz. Solar Photovoltaic, PV module, panel prices [Online] Available at:
<http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm>, accessed July 2008
[23] Southwest Windpower Inc. Skystream 3.7: 1.8 kW residential power appliance.
Available at:
<http://www.windenergy.com/documents/brochures/0376_Skystream_brochure.p
df>

55
 Appendix

Appendix A – HOMER input requirements

Note: This is a selection of inputs that might be useful in Totara Bank project and in any
case an exhaustive list.

I. Resources
1. Wind

9 Hourly average wind speed for a year starting on January the 1st between
midnight and 1a.m. (m/s)
9 Site altitude (m)
9 Anemometer altitude (m)
9 Variation of wind speed with altitude if the wind turbine hub has not the same
altitude than the anemometer.

If hourly average wind speed records for a year are not available (then, use of
HOMER’s synthetic wind data generator):
9 Monthly average wind speed (m/s)
9 Weibull k value: indication of the breadth of wind speed
9 Autocorrelation factor r1: is a measure of how the wind speed varies from hour
to hour
9 Diurnal pattern strength δ: is a measure of how strongly the wind speed tends to
depend on the time of the day
9 Hour peak wind speed Φ: is the hour of the day that tends to be the windiest on
average

2. Solar

9 Latitude (°, ’)
9 Longitude (°, ’)
9 Time zone (GMT)
9 Hourly available solar (global) radiation for a year starting on January the 1st
between midnight and 1a.m. (kW/m²)

If the hourly solar radiation records are not available (then, use of HOMER’s synthetic
solar data generator):
9 Monthly average solar radiation (kWh/m²/d) or clearness index

II. Demand: Primary load

9 Load type: AC or DC
9 Hourly electricity demand for a year starting on January the 1st between
midnight and 1a.m. (kW)

If the hourly electricity demand records are not available (then, use of HOMER’s
synthetic load data generator):

56
9 24-hour electricity demand record (kW)
Note: It’s better to get the profile for each representative month otherwise the same
will be used throughout the year
9 Daily and hourly noises (random parameters) (%)

III. Technologies
1. Wind turbine

9 Type: model, manufacturer

9 Properties:
o Rated power (kW)
o AC or DC
o Wind speed-power curve (m/s – kW)
o Hub height (m)
o Lifetime (year)
9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)
9 Number of wind turbine

2. PV panels

9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)

9 Size (kW)
9 Properties:
o AC or DC
o Lifetime (year)
o Derating factor fv: factor that HOMER applies to PV array
power to take into account for reduced output in real-world
operating conditions (snow, shade…) compared to the
conditions under which the PV panel was rated (%)
o Slope β: angle at which panels are mounted relative to the
horizontal (°)
o Azimuth γ: direction toward which the panels face (°)
o Ground reflectance ρg (%)

9 Advanced parameters:
o Tracking system: if the PV panels orientation can be changed
o Temperature coefficient of power αp: dependence of power
output on cell temperature (%/°C)
o Nominal operating cell temperature Tc,NOCT: how the PV cell
temperature varies with the ambient temperature and solar
radiation (°C)
o Efficiency at Standard Test Conditions ηmp,STC: efficiency with
which the PV converts sunlight into electricity at its maximum
power point under Standard Test Conditions (%)

3. Battery

9 Type: model, manufacturer

9 Properties:

57
 o Nominal capacity: the amount of energy that can be drawn out
of the battery at the rated discharge current, starting from a
fully charged state (Ah)
o Nominal voltage Unom: rated voltage (V)
o Round trip efficiency ηbatt,rt: energy put into the battery that can
be retrieved (%)
o Minimum state of charge qmin: the relative state of charge below
which the battery bank is never drawn (%)
o Float life Rbatt,f: the maximum lifetime of the battery, regardless
of usage (year)
o Maximum charge rate αc: the battery's maximum allowable
charge rate (A/Ah of unfilled capacity)
o Maximum charge current: the absolute maximum charge
current (A)
o Lifetime throughput Qlifetime: the total amount of energy that can
be cycled through the battery before it needs replacement
(kWh)
o Capacity curve: capacity (Ah) versus discharge current (A)
o Lifetime curve: cycles to failure versus depth of discharge (%)

9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)

9 Number of batteries

4. Converter

9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)

9 Size (kW)
Inverter:
9 Lifetime (year)
9 Efficiency with which it converts DC to AC (%)
9 Possibility to operate at the same time as one or more AC generators
Rectifier
9 Capacity relative to inverter: the rated capacity of the rectifier relative to that of
the inverter (%)
9 Efficiency with which it converts AC to DC (%)

5. Grid

9 Rates: schedule rates or real time price

o Grid power price ($/kWh)
o Sellback rate ($/kWh)
o Demand rate: the monthly fee charged by the utility on the
monthly peak demand ($/kW/month)
o Time period
o Net metering option
9 Pollutant emissions (g/kWh)
9 Advanced parameters:
o Interconnection charge: fee to be connected to the grid ($)

58
 o Standby charge: the annual fee charged by the utility for
providing backup grid power for a grid-connected power
system ($/year)
o Purchase capacity (kW)
o Sale capacity (kW)
o Possibility to add constraint and control parameters
9 Forecasting: if electric system operator requires power sales forecast

IV. Economy
9 Annual real interest rate: the discount rate used to convert between one-time
costs and annualized costs (%)
9 Project lifetime: the number of years over which the net present cost of the
project should be calculated (year)
9 System fixed capital cost: the fixed capital cost that occurs at the start of the
project regardless of the size or architecture of the power system ($)
9 System fixed Operation & Maintenance cost: the recurring annual cost that
occurs regardless of the size or architecture of the power system ($/year)
9 Capacity shortage penalty: a penalty applied to the system for any capacity
shortage ( = a shortfall that occurs between the required operating capacity and
the actual amount of operating capacity the system can provide) ($/kWh)

Appendix B – Average day-month wind speed profile

6

January
5
February
March
4 April
Wind speed (m/s)

May
June
3 July
August
September
2 October
November
1 December
Average

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time of day (h)

Figure 28: Long-term average day-month hourly wind speed profile (1995-2007)

59
 Appendix C – New Zealand solar radiation map

Figure 29: New Zealand global solar radiation map [16]

Appendix D – Wind turbine models

Turbine Cut-in Rated Cut-out

Hub
Rated Wind Wind Wind
Manufacturer Model Height
Power Speed Speed Speed
kW m/s m/s m/s m
1 Soma Soma 1000 3.5 10.0 50 19
1.8 Southwest Windpower Inc Skystream 3.7 3.5 9 25 10
2.5 Proven Wind Turbines WT2500 2.5 12.0 70 11
3 World Power Technologies Whisper 3000 3.1 11.2 55 19
6 Proven Wind Turbines WT6000 2.5 10.0 70 21
10 Bergey BWC Excel 10 3.1 13.0 54 24.4
20 Wind Turbine Industries Corp Jacobs 29-20 3.6 11.6 54 24
30 Enercon GmbH Enercon E-12 3.0 11.0 60 32
50 Atlantic Orient Corporation AOC 15/50 4.6 12.0 22.4 24.4
Table 17: Wind turbine models from the literature surveyed

60
 Appendix E – Wind speed – power curves

1,4

1,2

Soma 1000
1
Skystream 3.7
Power/Rated power

WT2500
0,8 Whisper 3000
WT6000
0,6 BWC Excel 10
Jacobs 29-20
Enercon E-12
0,4
AOC 15/50

0,2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Wind speed (m/s)

Figure 30: Wind speed – power curves for different wind turbine models

Appendix F – PV panel characteristic

90

80

70
y = 109.01x
Nominal power (W)

60 2
R = 0.9886
50

40

30

20

10

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Surface (m²)

Figure 31: PV panel characteristic: Nominal power versus surface

61
 Appendix G – Day-month hourly electrical demand – Method discussion
The similar daily shape for each month can be explained by the method employed
to create the original data set. In fact, it seems that only the average February (and July)
daily hourly electrical demand as well as the average daily electrical consumptions for
each month were available for the baseline house. As a consequence, electrical demands
for other month were built by combining these original data. For each month, the
following relative difference has been calculated:
E avg _ month _ day − E avg _ February _ day
Diff February = Equation 13
E avg _ February _ day

It has then been supposed that this difference was the same between the day-month
hourly electrical data:
E avg _ month _ day _ hourly = (1 + Diff )E avg _ February _ day _ hourly Equation 14

That is why the shape is just translated towards higher consumption during winter.

It is necessary to be critical towards such a profile. In reality, the electrical demand

shape cannot be similar for each month. When days are shorter, lights are turned on
earlier to offset the lack of natural lighting; as a consequence the load peak must be
longer than in summer17. Nevertheless, these baseline data constitute a first basis that
can possibly be refined later.

Another way could have been used to define Eavg_month_day_hourly using the available
hourly data of both February and July in order to better take into account the change of
consumption throughout the year. The method consists in weighting February and July
daily hourly profiles to create the other month profiles.
Two relative differences can be calculated:
E avg _ month _ day − E avg _ February _ day
Diff February = Equation 13
E avg _ February _ day
E avg _ month _ day − E avg _ July _ day
and Diff July = Equation 15
E avg _ July _ day
E avg _ month _ day _ hourly = f (1 + Diff February )E avg _ February _ day _ hourly
Then,
+ (1 − f )(1 + Diff July )E avg _ July _ day _ hourly
Equation 16

n July − nmonth
with f = Equation 17
n
where nmonth is the index of the considered month, taking for reference nJanuary = 1, and n
is equal to 5 for the months from March to June and to 7 otherwise. Values for n and f
are summarized in Table 18.

17
It is besides possible to compare the “baseline” July daily hourly electrical profile obtained using the
described method with the one developed using directly the “original” July daily hourly data available
from the monitoring (taking off the supposed thermal load of 4.3 kWh/h). Results are presented in
(Appendix H – July daily hourly electrical demand profile comparison)

62
 Jan Mar Apr May Jun Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
nmonth 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12
f 6/7 4/5 3/5 2/5 1/5 1/7 2/7 3/7 4/7 5/7
Table 18: n and f values used in Eavg_month_day_hourly calculation

Profiles obtained with this method are presented in Figure 32.

25

January
20 February
March
Electrical demand (kW)

April
15 May
June
July
10 August
September
October
5 November
December

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time of day (h)

Figure 32: Average day-month hourly electrical demand for the eight houses according to the
method presented above

Appendix H – July daily hourly electrical demand profile comparison

18

16

14

12
Power (kW)

10
July origin
8 July

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time of day

Figure 33: Comparison between the original (from monitoring) July and the built baseline July
average daily hourly electrical demand for the eight houses

63
 Appendix I – HOMER input assumptions: Baseline conditions
The component sizes or numbers to consider for the simulation are currently limited
in order not to take to long time to calculate the results. They need then to be refined
step by step.

I. Resources
1. Wind

9 Hourly average wind speed for a “design year” starting on January the 1st
between midnight and 1 a.m. (m/s) [8760 data (non leap year)]

The following data consolidation was undertaken with hourly data:

The “design” year profile is a putting together of hourly wind speed data lumped by
month from different years (1995 – 2007). For each of the month (e.g. Januarys), the
month was selected that had the average wind speed closest to the monthly thirteen-year
average.

In that case, the following months were adopted to create the design year: January
07, February 97, March 05, April 03, May 07, June 95, July 96, August 06, September
98, October 95, November 99 and December 06, keeping intact the original hourly data
considered.

9 Site altitude (m): 91m

9 Anemometer altitude (m): 10m
9 Variation of wind speed with altitude if the wind turbine hub has not the same
altitude than the anemometer: logarithmic profile

If hourly average wind speed records for a year are not available (then, use of
HOMER’s synthetic wind data generator): Not applicable
9 Monthly average wind speed (m/s)
9 Weibull k value: indication of the breadth of wind speed
9 Autocorrelation factor r1: is a measure of how the wind speed varies from hour
to hour
9 Diurnal pattern strength δ: is a measure of how strongly the wind speed tends to
depend on the time of the day
9 Hour peak wind speed Φ: is the hour of the day that tends to be the windiest on
average

2. Solar

9 Latitude (°, ’): 41°1’ South (41.018° South)

9 Longitude (°, ’): 175°40’ East (175.668° East)
9 Time zone (GMT): GMT +12:00 Kamchatka, New Zealand, Fiji
9 Long-term average hourly global solar radiation (1995-2007) for a year starting
on January the 1st between midnight and 1a.m. (kW/m²). [8760 data (non leap
year)].

64
If the hourly solar radiation records are not available (then, use of HOMER’s synthetic
solar data generator): Not applicable
9 Monthly average solar radiation (kWh/m²/d) or clearness index

II. Demand: Primary load

9 Load type: AC
9 Hourly electricity demand for a year starting on January the 1st between
midnight and 1a.m. (kW) [8760 data (non leap year)] Not available

If the hourly electricity demand records are not available (then, use of HOMER’s
synthetic load data generator):
9 24-hour electricity demand record (kW)

Note: It’s better to get the profile for each representative month otherwise the same
will be used throughout the year

Day-month hourly average electricity demand (kWh/h) without electrical space

heating for the whole site (8 baseline houses) scaled with HEEP figures

9 Daily and hourly noises (random parameters) (%): 10%

III. Technologies
1. Wind turbine

9 Type: model, manufacturer

9 Properties
o Rated power (kW)
o Hub height (m)

Turbine
Hub
Rated
Manufacturer Model Height
Power
kW m
1 Soma Soma 1000 19
6 Proven Wind Turbines WT6000 21

o Soma 1000: DC and WT6000: AC

o Wind speed-power curve (m/s – kW): Defined
o Lifetime (year): 20 years

9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)

Capital cost
Model Replacement (2006 NZ$) 0&M (2006 NZ$/year)
(2006 NZ$)
Soma 1000 13261.7 2040.3 204.0
WT6000 45765.5 7040.8 704.1
9 Number of wind turbine

65
 o Soma 1000: 0, 1 or 2
o WT6000: 0, 1 or 2

2. PV panels

9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)

S (W) Capital cost (2006 NZ$) Replacement (2006 NZ$) 0&M (2006 NZ$/year)
100 2170.3 1302.2 43.4

9 Size (kW): 0, 1, 5 or10 kW

9 Properties:
o DC
o Lifetime (year): 20 years
o Derating factor fv: factor that HOMER applies to PV array
power to take into account for reduced output in real-world
operating conditions (snow, shade…) compared to the
conditions under which the PV panel was rated (%): 80 %
o Slope β: angle at which panels are mounted relative to the
horizontal (°): 41.0167° (latitude by default)
o Azimuth γ: direction toward which the panels face (°): 180°
West of South (value by default)
o Ground reflectance ρg (%): 20 % (value by default)

9 Advanced parameters: Not considered so far

o Tracking system: if the PV panels orientation can be changed
Not applicable, a priori.
o Temperature coefficient of power αp: dependence of power
output on cell temperature (%/°C): -0.5 %/°C (by default,
consistent with manufacturer doc)
o Nominal operating cell temperature Tc,NOCT: how the PV cell
temperature varies with the ambient temperature and solar
radiation (°C): 47°C (by default, consistent with manufacturer
doc)
o Efficiency at Standard Test Conditions ηmp,STC: efficiency with
which the PV converts sunlight into electricity at its maximum
power point under Standard Test Conditions (%): 13 % (by
default, consistent with manufacturer doc)

3. Battery

9 Type: model, manufacturer

o Trojan T-105 (from Technological survey and HOMER library)
9 Properties: (from HOMER library data)
o Nominal capacity: the amount of energy that can be drawn out of the
battery at the rated discharge current, starting from a fully charged state
(Ah): 225 Ah
o Nominal voltage Unom: rated voltage (V): 6 V

66
 o Round trip efficiency ηbatt,rt: energy put into the battery that can be
retrieved (%): 85 %
o Minimum state of charge qmin: the relative state of charge below which
the battery bank is never drawn (%): 30 %
o Float life Rbatt,f: the maximum lifetime of the battery, regardless of usage
(year): 10 years
o Maximum charge rate αc: the battery's maximum allowable charge rate
(A/Ah of unfilled capacity): 1 A/Ah
o Maximum charge current: the absolute maximum charge current (A): 11
A
o Lifetime throughput Qlifetime: the total amount of energy that can be
cycled through the battery before it needs replacement (kWh): 845 kWh
o Capacity curve: capacity (Ah) versus discharge current (A): from
HOMER library data
o Lifetime curve: cycles to failure versus depth of discharge (%): from
HOMER library data

9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)

Model Capital cost (2006 NZ$) Replacement (2006 NZ$) 0&M (2006 NZ$/year)
T-105 313.2 313.2 6.3

9 Number of batteries: 0, 5 or 10

4. Converter

9 Costs: capital, replacement and maintenance ($ or $/year)

S (W) Capital cost (2006 NZ$) Replacement (2006 NZ$) 0&M (2006 NZ$/year)
100 396.6 396.6 4.0
350 1257.0 1257.0 12.6
500 1745.7 1745.7 17.5
1000 3304.9 3304.9 33.1
2500 7683.9 7683.9 76.8
5000 14546.9 14546.9 145.5
7500 21130.7 21130.7 211.3
10000 27539.6 27539.6 275.4
The costs are deduced from the capacity function analysis.

9 Size (kW): 0, 5 or 10 kW
Inverter:
9 Lifetime (year): 15 years
9 Efficiency with which it converts DC to AC (%): 90 % (value by default)
9 Possibility to operate at the same time as one or more AC generators: yes (but
not useful, a priori)
Rectifier: Not applicable
9 Capacity relative to inverter: the rated capacity of the rectifier relative to that of
the inverter (%): 100 % (value by default)
9 Efficiency with which it converts AC to DC (%): 85 % (value by default)

67
 5. Grid

9 Rates: schedule rates

o Grid power price ($/kWh): 0.26 NZ$/kWh
o Sellback rate ($/kWh): 0.04 NZ$/kWh
o Demand rate: the monthly fee charged by the utility on the
monthly peak demand ($/kW/month): Not applicable
o Time period: All week
o Net metering option: Not considered so far

9 Pollutant emissions (g/kWh):

Guidance for Voluntary, Corporate Greenhouse gas reporting data [19]:
o Emission factor for the consumption of purchased electricity – 2006:
0.209 kg CO2-e/kWh
o Transmission and distribution line losses for purchased electricity –
2006: 0.0197 kg CO2-e/kWh
Î Global emission factor for the consumption of purchased electricity with
account of transmission and distribution line losses: 0.2287 kg CO2-e/kWh

As the available emission data are in kg CO2-e/kWh, it has been considered that the
totality of the emissions was CO2 only because the proportion of the different pollutants
was not specified.
o Carbon dioxide: 228.7 g/kWh
o Carbon monoxide: 0 g/kWh
o Unburned hydrocarbons: 0 g/kWh
o Particulate matter: 0 g/kWh
o Sulphur dioxide: 0 g/kWh
o Nitrogen oxides: 0 g/kWh

9 Advanced parameters:
o Interconnection charge: fee to be connected to the grid ($):
97.5 NZ$
Data available [from Mandy Armstrong]
• Contact Energy charges: $75 for new connections
• Meridian Energy charges: $35 for new connection admin; $85 for a
meter charge (must be activating the new meter)
75 + (35 + 85)
Î Average interconnection charge: = 97.5 NZ $
2
o Standby charge: the annual fee charged by the utility for
providing backup grid power for a grid-connected power
system ($/year): 330.5 NZ$/y
Data available [from Mandy Armstrong]:
• Standard daily charges: 82.5 to 98.6 c/day (including GST, 1 meter)
0.825 + 0.986
Î Average standby charge: × 365 = 330.5 NZ $ / y
2

o Purchase capacity (kW): Superior to the load peak: 18 kW

o Sale capacity (kW): 50 kW… over-dimensioned in order not to
limit the sales if excess of electricity

68
 o Possibility to add constraint and control parameters: Not
considered so far
9 Forecasting: if electric system operator requires power sales forecast: Not
applicable

IV. Economy
9 Annual real interest rate: the discount rate used to convert between one-time
costs and annualized costs (%): 10 %
9 Project lifetime: the number of years over which the net present cost of the
project should be calculated (year): 50 years
9 System fixed capital cost: the fixed capital cost that occurs at the start of the
project regardless of the size or architecture of the power system ($): Not
defined (currently 0 NZ$)
9 System fixed Operation & Maintenance cost: the recurring annual cost that
occurs regardless of the size or architecture of the power system ($/year): Not
defined (currently 0 NZ$)
9 Capacity shortage penalty: a penalty applied to the system for any capacity
shortage ( = a shortfall that occurs between the required operating capacity and
the actual amount of operating capacity the system can provide) ($/kWh): Not
applicable

V. System control
9 Simulation: time state: 60 minutes (value by default)
9 Dispatch strategy: Cycle charging – Apply setpoint state of charge: 80 %(value
by default)
9 General control: Not Applicable
9 Other setting
o Allow system with two type of wind turbine
o Allow excess of electricity to serve the thermal load

VI. Constraints
9 Maximum capacity shortage: 0 % (value by default)
9 Minimum renewable fraction: 0 %(value by default)
9 Operating reserve: Value by default
9 Primary energy savings: Not considered

VII. Emissions
9 Emissions penalties: Not applicable
9 Limits on emissions: Not considered

69