Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Energy and exergy efficiency comparison of horizontal and vertical axis

wind turbines
K. Pope, I. Dincer, G.F. Naterer*
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L1H 7K4

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, an energy and exergy analysis is performed on four different wind power systems,
Received 11 February 2009 including both horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines. Significant variability in turbine designs and
Accepted 14 February 2010 operating parameters are encompassed through the selection of systems. In particular, two airfoils (NACA
Available online 25 March 2010
63(2)-215 and FX 63-137) commonly used in horizontal axis wind turbines are compared with two
vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs). A Savonius design and Zephyr VAWT benefit from operational
Keywords:
attributes in wind conditions that are unsuitable for airfoil type designs. This paper analyzes each system
Wind turbine
with respect to both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The aerodynamic performance of each
Exergy
Energy
system is numerically analyzed by computational fluid dynamics software, FLUENT. A difference in first
Efficiency and second law efficiencies of between 50 and 53% is predicted for the airfoil systems, whereas 44e55%
differences are predicted for the VAWT systems. Key design variables are analyzed and the predicted
results are discussed. The exergetic efficiency of each wind turbine is studied for different geometries,
design parameters and operating conditions. It is shown that the second law provides unique insight
beyond a first law analysis, thereby providing a useful design tool for wind power development.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Local or distributed power generation has attracted significant

Wind power systems have achieved significant improvement in
operating efficiencies, making them more economically competi-
tive with other energy generation techniques. Along with the need
for increased sustainability in the energy sector, wind energy
systems are increasing their market share faster than any other
renewable energy system [1]. Horizontal axis wind turbines
(HAWTs) have emerged as the dominant technology in modern
wind energy technologies. In comparison to a vertical axis wind
turbine (VAWT), a HAWT can achieve higher energy efficiencies,
thereby increasing the power production and reducing system
expense per kW of power generated. But as the opportunity to
expand wind capacity increases, it is important that all aspects of
this sustainable and environmentally benign technology are fully
developed. VAWTs have demonstrated an ability to fulfill certain
energy generation requirements that cannot be fulfilled by HAWTs.
A HAWT can achieve higher efficiencies, but only if the energy
quality of the wind is high. High wind turbulence, wind fluctua-
tions, and high directional variability can cause significant prob-
lems for a HAWT, whereas VAWTs can operate well.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kevin.pope@mycampus.uoit.ca (K. Pope), ibrahim.dincer@
uoit.ca (I. Dincer), greg.naterer@uoit.ca (G.F. Naterer).
attention in recent years. The resurgence of this old technology is
partly attributed to the need for environmentally benign and
sustainable energy systems in smaller communities. This includes
diversifying the generation techniques and increasing the system
efficiencies, while minimizing the environmental impact. Onsite
power generation can overcome transmission losses and land costs.
However, densely populated locations and urban centers generally
coincide with a low quality of wind source, including high turbu-
lence, fluctuations in intensity, and highly variable direction of the
flow streams [2]. Variable pitch blades can improve turbine
performance by varying the angle of attack to coincide with the
various wind conditions, but this approach is generally not
economically practical for small installations [3]. Fluctuating winds
can greatly reduce a HAWT's performance as long as idling periods
are experienced at start-up when the rotor accelerates slowly. For
a small HAWT, a past study reported it to be 50 s at a wind speed of
8 m/s [4]. Certain VAWT designs have the ability to operate in these
harsh operating conditions. However, there is no clear method to
compare these different turbine designs in various wind conditions
that are inherent to the different operating regions.
Typical design methodologies employ the first law of thermo-
dynamics for wind power system analysis and design. Empirical
tests and experience must often be used to improve system
performance and implementation. The process irreversibilities are

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.02.013
 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113
Nomenclature
A Area [m2]
B Number of blades [e]
Cp Specific heat [kJ/kg K]
Cpower Power coefficient [e]
E Energy [kJ]
ex Specific exergy [kJ/kg]
_
Ex Exergy rate [kW]
I Irreversibilities [kW]
KE Kinetic energy [kJ]
m Mass [kg]
P Power [kW]
R Radius [m]
t Time [s]
T Temperature [
C]
U Volume [m3]
V Velocity [m/s]
W Work [kJ]
W _ Work rate [W]
m _ Mass flow rate [kg/s]
not represented in the analysis [5]. A theoretical maximum effi-
ciency can be predicted, but irreversibilities are not identified. With
a first law methodology, the designer includes a predetermined
design factor to account for the irreversibilities. Past experimental
data reported that actual flow across a wind turbine rotor is about
20% slower than the ideal flow [6]. Predicting turbine performance
with complicated variations in operating demands and design
configurations reveal the deficiencies with this strategy [7]. In
contrast, the second law defines a quality of energy and quantity of
irreversibility or loss associated with the thermodynamic process.
In this paper, the concept of entropy generation will be used to
describe the magnitude of energy dissipation. Higher levels of
entropy generation are associated with a lower level of useful
energy. The second law requires that the amount of entropy in an
isolated system will always increase [8]. This principle can be
applied to a variety of engineering applications.
Entropy-based design and exergy analysis have been shown to
identify the maximum theoretical capability of energy system
performance in various applications. For example, it can provide
component-level energy management to improve diffuser perfor-
mance [9] and reduce voltage losses within a fuel cell [10]. Exergy
analysis has been used to diagnose inefficiencies of power plants
[11], minimize the carryover leakage irreversibilities in a power
plant regenerative air heater [12], and many other power plant
associated applications. These studies have shown exergy analysis
to be very useful for improving a wide range of thermo fluid
systems. Exergy analysis also provides a design tool for increased
accuracy and more efficient performance.
However, there are few examples in past literature that pertain
to wind exergy. Through an energy and exergy analysis of the
characteristics of wind energy, it was found that differences
between energy and exergy efficiencies are approximately 20e24%
at low wind speeds and approximately 10e15% at high wind speeds
[13]. Sahin et al. [14] developed a useful exergetic analysis tech-
nique for determining the exergetic efficiency of a wind turbine.
The technique utilizes the wind chill temperature associated with
wind velocity to predict the entropy generation of the process.
Better turbine design and location selection can be achieved with
the aid of such exergy analysis.
In this paper, a comparison of second law efficiencies for four
different wind power systems will be presented. The analysis is
2103
Greek
h Energy efficiency [e]
l Tip speed ratio [e]
r Air density [kg/m3]
4 Approach angle [
]
J Exergy efficiency [e]
u Humidity ratio [e]
Subscripts
0 Ambient
2 Definition 2 (exergy)
B Benz limit
D Drag
dest Destruction
eff Effective
KE Kinetic energy
L Lift
ph Physical
x Horizontal vector
y Vertical vector
intended to compare turbines that have different performance
advantages in various operating conditions. A parametric study
investigates the selection and associated predictions of key variables
for each system. This paper will develop a second law analysis of wind
power for potentially valuable utility in the wind energy industry.
2. Wind energy system description
Four systems will be investigated in this paper: two airfoils
commonly used for horizontal axis wind turbines [15,16] and two
VAWTs (Savonius and Zephyr) operating under low quality wind
properties (see Figs. 1 and 2). These include (i) a NACA 63(2)-215
airfoil developed by the National Advisory Committee for Aero-
nautics (NACA) and (ii) the Wortmann FX 63-137. The VAWTs
include (iii) a conventional Savonius design and (iv) a more
complex Zephyr VAWT prototype. A numerical model for each
system is developed for the fluid flow analysis. Computational Fluid
Dynamics software, FLUENT [17], is used to predict the operation of
each system. These numerical models will offer insight into the
fluid flow characteristics for each of the different turbines. Data
gained from the numerical predictions will be used to examine the
second law efficiencies of wind power systems.
2.1. System 1: NACA 63(2)-215 airfoil
As presented in Fig. 3a, the NACA 63(2)-215 airfoil is a conven-
tional design that creates lift with low wind speeds, making it
suitable for use in wind turbine blades [15,16]. Throughout the
following analysis, the approach angle (4) is estimated to be 10
. The
incoming components of velocity are Vx ¼ 9.85 m/s and Vy ¼ 1.74 m/s.
The X and Y force vectors for the lift and drag components become
XL ¼ sin(10
) ¼ 0.174, YL ¼ cos(10
) ¼ 0.985, XD ¼ cos
(10
) ¼ 0.985, and YD ¼ sin(10
) ¼ 0.174, respectively. Table 1
summarizes the system assumptions used in the numerical analysis.
The profile of the NACA 63(2)-215 airfoil is discretized with
a structured quadrilateral cell scheme. The mesh is refined from an
average cell edge length of 260 mm at the outer region, to 14 mm at
the airfoil surface. Refined to a total of 12,150 cells, with an average
cell size of 0.061 m2, produces results that are independent of
further grid refinement [18]. The governing equations are the
incompressible form of NaviereStokes equations. The standard k-3
2104 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113

Fig. 1. Zephyr vertical axis wind turbine (a) illustration and (b) geometrical variables.

model is used to simulate turbulence in the flow field. This is
a widely used model that provides reasonable accuracy and
a robust ability to represent a wide range of flow regimes [17]. The
features of the airfoil solver are summarized below:
 Finite volume method with a segregated solver;
 Standard ke3 turbulence model;
 Standard wall functions for near-wall treatment;
 Air density is constant, 1.225 kg/m3;
 Air viscosity is constant, 1.7894  105 kg/m s;
 Backflow turbulence intensity, 12%;
 Velocity-inlet e velocity specification method;
 Inlet x-velocity, 9.85 m/s;
 Inlet y-velocity, 1.74 m/s;
 Airfoil roughness height, 500 mm;
 Pressureevelocity coupling e SIMPLE;
 Turbulence kinetic energy e second order upwind; and
 Turbulence dissipation rate e second order upwind.
2.2. System 2: FX 63-137 airfoil
This airfoil has been examined widely in past literature. Its
characteristics will be used to investigate the aerodynamic behav-
iour of wind turbines [15,16]. In comparison to other common wind
turbine airfoil profiles, this design provides a relatively complex
configuration. The pronounced tail curvature provides a substantial
contrast to System 1 that will be evaluated (see Fig. 3b).
The same solver features, including the governing and turbu-
lence equations, as with System 1 e NACA 63(2)-215 e will be used
for this system. Variations in airfoil surface roughness are pre-
sented in Fig. 4. Convergence in both lift and drag coefficients are

Fig. 2. Sample mesh discretization of VAWT e a) rotor, b) stator and surrounding sub-
domain. Fig. 3. Velocity contours (m/s) for (a) NACA 63(2)-215 and (b) FX 63-137 airfoils.
 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113 2105

Table 1
Significant system assumptions.

V1 [m/s] Radius [m] Area [m2] Wout Wout,2

NACA 63(2)-215 airfoil 10 1 p  12 f(CL, CD) DKE
FX 63-137 airfoil 10 1 p  12 f(CL, CD) DKE
Savonius VAWT 10 1 2 f(T, l) DKE
Zephyr VAWT 10 0.762 0.7622 f(T, l) DKE

evident after 250 mm. For both airfoils, a CL/CD ratio will be used for
the power coefficient predictions from a roughness height of
500 mm. The mesh is refined from an average of 289 mm at the
outer region, to 0.014 mm at the airfoil surface. It is refined to
12,195 cells, with an average cell size of 0.061 m2.

2.3. System 3: savonius VAWT

The Savonius VAWT is a common design that is capable of

reaching substantial efficiencies. There is significant past literature
on this design. For example, extensive experiments were per-
formed by Saha [19], whereby 16 Savonius models with identical
aspect ratios were compared in wind tunnel tests. The study
included an investigation of the optimum number of rotor blades
(two or three), number of stages (one, two, or three), and the best
blade shape (twisted or semicircular). The author found that a two-
stage design, with two twisted rotor blades, preformed the best,
achieving a maximum power coefficient of 0.32. Biswas et al. [20]
investigated experimentally the overlap effect of rotors on a Savo-
nius wind turbine. The authors achieved a power coefficient of 0.37.
A hybrid Savonius e Darrieus turbine achieved a maximum Cpower
of 0.51, in a comparative study described by Gupta et al. [21]. In the
current paper, a basic semicircular design will be used, with a 10%
overlap (see Fig. 5a).
The domain is discretized into 13,693 cells with an average cell
size of 0.019 m2. The mesh is refined from 500 mm at the boundary, Fig. 5. Velocity contours (m/s) for (a) Savonius and (b) Zephyr VAWTs.
to 50 mm at the rotor surface. Again, the same governing and
turbulence equations, as for previous cases, will be used for this
system. However, considerable differences in some solver features determine the power coefficient. The wall roughness height is
are required. A transient mesh formulation is used to simulate the assumed negligible, and the incoming velocity is simulated to be
rotor motion. This allows the rotor to rotate 50 time steps per Vx ¼ 10 m/s and Vy ¼ 0.
revolution, with a time step size of 0.0209 s. The numerically pre-
dicted average moment induced on the rotor blades will be used to 2.4. System 4: Zephyr VAWT

As illustrated in Figs. 1, 2 and 5b, the Zephyr turbine represents

a more complex VAWT. The features of this turbine allow it to
perform in both low wind and high turbulence conditions. Thus,
several turbines can operate in close proximity of each other in
urban areas. The maximum power coefficient of this turbine is
relatively low, in comparison to other systems. However, it is an
ideal candidate to operate in low quality winds and offers a good
contrast to the Savonius VAWT and airfoil HAWT systems. The
stator sub-domain is discretized with an edge length of 191 mm at
the exterior, which is gradually refined to an edge length of
6.35 mm at the rotor. This yields approximately 117,000 cells, with
an average area of 217 mm2. At this resolution, the results become
independent of grid spacing [22]. The analysis of this system
employs the same solver features, including the governing and
turbulence equations, as the Savonius VAWT.

3. Formulation of first and second law efficiencies

This section will compare the first law efficiency (h) with the
second law efficiency (J). The energy efficiency is defined as the
Fig. 4. Airfoil performance with variable surface roughness. ratio of useful work to the difference in kinetic energy,
2106 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113

_ out
W Table 2
h¼ (1) Significant numerical assumptions and predictions.
P
l P0 [kPa] T0 [C] CL CD CM Cpower
The exergy efficiency refers to the ratio of useful work to the
NACA 63(2)-215 airfoil 4 101.3 25 1.15 0.0385 e 0.44
exergy of the wind, FX 63-137 airfoil 4 101.3 25 1.87 0.0357 e 0.47
Savonius VAWT 0.5 101.3 25 e e 0.0294 0.18
_
W Zephyr VAWT 0.5 101.3 25 e e 0.0147 0.11
J ¼ _ out (2)
Exflow
In general, the energy balance equation for a wind turbine can
be represented by irreversibilities, which were not included in the first law analysis.
The exergy of flow, Ex _
flow , can be defined as the maximum attain-
KE1 ¼ Wout þ KE2 (3) able work acquired as the air flows through the turbine [7]. The
relevant terms include physical ðEx _ _
where KE is the kinetic energy of the flow stream and Wout is the ph Þ and kinetic exergy ðExKE Þ,
useful work produced by the turbine. The equation describes the
_ _ _
energy content of air as it passes through a two-dimensional plane. Ex flow ¼ Exph þ ExKE (8)
It is based on the kinetic energy of wind, which is Physical exergy includes the enthalpy and entropy changes
associated with the turbine operation, expressed as [14]
1
KE ¼ mV 2 (4)
    
2 T P
_ _ CP ðT2  T1 Þ þ T0 CP ln 2  Rln 2
Ex ph ¼ m
where KE is energy, m is mass, and V is the wind velocity. T1 P1
The mass of wind is difficult to measure, so a more convenient  
CP T0  Taverage
variable is volume (U), as related to mass by m ¼ r U, where r is the  (9)
T0
density of air. The volume is expressed by the product of the cross-
sectional area perpendicular to the wind (A) and the horizontal where Pi ¼ P0  ðr=2ÞV 2 and T1 and T2 are determined through the
length of incoming wind (L). The horizontal length of incoming wind chill temperature, based on a model developed by Zecher
wind is then expressed as L ¼ U t. This re-arrangement results in the [23]. The first term in the square brackets represents the change in
more convenient following expression, flow enthalpy, while the second term characterizes the flow irre-
versibilities of the system. The irreversibilities associated with the
1 system can be determined by
KE ¼ rAtV 3 (5)
2
I ¼ T0 DS (10)
Since power is related to energy by P ¼ E/t, the above expression is
more commonly used in the following form, or
      
1 T2 P2 _ P T0  Taverage
mC
P ¼ rAV 3 (6) _
I ¼ T0 CP ln  Rln  (11)
2 T1 P1 T0
where P is the magnitude of power, r is the density of air, A is the
The kinetic component of the flow exergy is equivalent to the
cross-sectional area perpendicular to wind, and V is the wind
difference of kinetic energy through the turbine (i.e., DKE. From
velocity. This expression describes total kinetic power of a wind
Eq. (3), the change in kinetic energy can also be expressed by the
stream. It is used for the production of wind power maps that are
work output of the turbine. This methodology offers a significant
used for turbine placement and resource estimation. Although KE1
opportunity to improve the wind turbine design and enhance the
can be readily determined from velocity measurements or predic-
site selection by supplementing the information provided by the
tions, many problems are associated with determining KE2. The exit
velocity from a wind turbine is extremely difficult to measure, as it
is highly variable and it quickly dissipates in all directions. As
a result, empirical work outputs are generally required to deter-
mine the wind turbine efficiency (h). 10
Methods for describing the independent variables in the energy
analysis are relatively straightforward. The density of air is most
8
affected by temperature and relative humidity of the air. Temper-
ature can be readily measured and computed. As a result, density is
normally selected solely on this measure (i.e., r (T), where T ¼ air
6
temperature). The air moisture content (u) also affects wind
V2
density. A more accurate measure of density is r (T, u). However, [m/s]
NACA 63(2)-215 Airfoil
FX 63-137 Airfoil
this is not commonly modelled in practice. 4 Savonius VAWT
A second law analysis includes the flow irreversibilities associ- Zephyr VAWT
ated with the system. The exergy balance equation can be
expressed as 2

_ _ _ _
Ex 1 ¼ W out þ Ex2 þ Exdest (7)
_ 0
where Ex dest represents the exergy destruction associated with the 1 2 3 4
process. It is a representative measure of the irreversibilities Definition of V2
involved with the process. This methodology offers a useful alter-
native measure of turbine efficiency that includes the Fig. 6. Definitions of V2 for a variety of wind power systems.
 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113 2107

first law analysis. The specific exergy destruction can be defined 2 2 31
  1:32 þ ðl20
8
as 16 4 5  ð0:57Þ l2
Cpower ¼ l lþ   (13)
C
lþ 1
2
27 B3 L

T0 DS CD 2B
exdest ¼ (12)
rAV The lift and drag coefficients are estimated from numerical
_ out will be determined by the model of Wilson predications obtained at the specified tip speed ratio and blade
For the airfoils, W _ out is determined from the product of
number. For the VAWTs, W
et al. [24]. This is an empirical technique that correlates the turbine
a numerically predicted torque and the simulated rotational
power coefficient with the lift (CL), drag (CD), number of blades (B),
velocity.
and tip speed ratio (l).

Fig. 7. Energy and exergy efficiencies based on (a) kinetic energy, (b) flow exergies, (c) V2 maintained constant, (d) V2/V1 maintained constant and (e) Benz efficiencies.
2108 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113
4. Results and discussion
In this section, the results of the first and second law analyses
will be presented. The numerical simulations are used to obtain
performance predictions of the various wind systems and provide
useful information about the fluid flow behaviour. For the airfoils,
the numerically predicted coefficients of lift and drag are used to
predict the maximum power coefficient through Eq. (12). A
numerically predicted moment coefficient is used to determine the
power coefficient of the VAWTs. The results of the numerical study
are summarized in Table 2.
Using the second law analyses for wind turbines requires V2. A
standard metric for finding V2 is crucial for maintaining consistent
exergetic efficiency predictions for different wind turbine designs
and operating conditions. In this paper, four different definitions for
determining V2 are presented. Each definition is investigated with
respect to its reference variables and operating conditions. The
second law predictions achieved from each definition are the
compared with the first law predictions and discussed with regards
to accuracy. The ability to represent the performance of different
turbine designs and operating conditions with a standard metric is
a significant contribution of the second law. Each definition of V2
and its ability to uphold these criteria will be identified. Four
definitions below of V2 will be used in the analysis (see Fig. 6),
 Definition 1: Point specific, low wind velocity (measured one
chord behind the turbine);
Fig. 8. Energy and exergy efficiencies with varying pressure for (a) point specific low velocity, (b) specific effective velocity, (c) effective velocity and (d) average low velocity.
 Definition 2: Specific effective velocity (V2 ¼ V2,eff  Aeff/A);
 Definition 3: Average velocity of useful area (V2 ¼ V2,useful,ave);
 Definition 4: Average of the low velocity stream.
A parametric study of the reference conditions and operating
wind conditions will be presented for each of the four wind energy
systems. The results will be compared for each definition of V2. This
includes (i) point specific low velocity, (ii) specific effective velocity,
(iii) average velocity of useful area, and the (iv) average of the low
velocity stream.
4.1. Definition 1: point specific, low wind velocity (measured one
chord behind the turbine)
Definition 1 is advantageous because it can be determined in
a consistent manner for different designs. Also, this definition lends
itself well to physical measurements. Virtually identical values of V2
are predicted for the VAWTs, with similar values also suggested for
the airfoils. The resultant airfoil second law efficiencies are 15% and
17% for the NACA 63(2)-215 and FX 63-137, respectively. A 51e50%
distinction between the first and second law efficiencies is
predicted for the airfoil designs. A different trend is forecasted for
the VAWTs. The second law efficiency for the Savonius VAWT is
predicted to be 17%, a 6% difference from the first law predictions.
Comparably, a 10% exergy efficiency, which is 9% different than the
first law predictions, is forecasted for the Zephyr VAWT.
 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113
Results of the energetic and exergetic analysis using Definition 1
for determining V2 are presented in Figs. 7e12a. Variations to the
reference conditions P0 and T0 are presented in Figs. 8a and 9a,
respectively. The minor effects of altering P0 are included in the first
law efficiencies for the VAWTs, but they do not affect the airfoils.
The discrepancy is caused by the method of determining W _ out , or
more specifically, the power coefficient. The analysis of the airfoils
uses an empirical correlation, which is independent of the refer-
ence pressure. In contrast, for the energy analysis, the VAWT
predictions include the effects of local pressure on the local wind
density, when predicting the power coefficient. The plot of varying
reference temperature includes the majority of the standard
operating conditions, with an equal distribution from 25
C, stan-
dard reference temperature. Similar to the variable P0, it can be
observed that although the second law efficiencies depend on the
choice of reference conditions, it allows different wind power
systems to be compared with one descriptive parameter.
Variations to the input velocity, V1, are presented in Figs. 10a and
11a. These figures illustrate the effects of variations of inlet velocity,
while comparing the assumptions that (a) V2 is constant, or (b) V2/
V1 is maintained constant. The first law analysis fails to predict
changes to the system efficiency when this crucial operating
condition is altered. In comparison, despite the assumption of V2,
the second law predicts an increased efficiency with higher values
of V1. The linear trend displayed by V2 has a higher variability,
suggesting that this definition of V2 increases reliability with the
assumption of V1/V2 ¼ C. More importantly, the second law
Fig. 9. Energy and exergy efficiencies with varying temperature for (a) point specific low velocity, (b) specific effective velocity, (c) effective velocity and (d) average low velocity.
2109
efficiency reveals variability in the efficiency of each system for
different wind conditions. This is valuable information when
designing a turbine for a wide variety of wind conditions, or
selecting a turbine for a specific site with one of the many different
possible operating requirements.
Sahin et al. [14] proposed that the shaft work is used to estimate
the kinetic component of flow exergy. The same value is used to
represent the work output, thereby assuming that the turbine is
100% energy efficient. This paper offers two alternative methods,
using one of the proposed definitions for obtaining V2 to represent
the change in kinetic energy. This includes the effects of DKE on (a)
_ _
its inclusion in Ex flow as ExKE , and (b) assuming DKE ¼ Wout. To
differentiate, the second law efficiencies in (a) are denoted as J2.
Fig. 7a illustrates the variations in the incoming velocity, where hKE
and JKE represent the first and second law efficiencies, with
DKE ¼ Wout. A high level of variability is expected with the defi-
nition of V2, thereby providing significant information about the
effects of the definition. Furthermore, these plots present the point
specific change in kinetic energy, as stated by the first law. Fig. 7c
and d present the methods of predicted flow exergy with
a varying inlet velocity. A comparison with Figs. 10a and 11a
predicts a 50e53% difference in the first and second law efficiencies
for the airfoil systems, and 44e55% for the VAWTs, at reference
conditions.
Fig. 7e illustrates the results of a second law analysis of the Benz
limit. The theoretical maximum energy efficiency is obtained with
the Benz limit. With the first law, the Benz limit is a constant value,
2110 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113
independent of operating conditions. However, combining the Benz
limit theory with second law analysis provides a theoretical
maximum efficiency that includes the effect of irreversibilities,
resulting in a dependence on design and operating conditions.
Defining it here as 0:59ðW _
_ out tÞ=Ex
flow , the second law Benz limit
_
with both methods of obtaining Ex flow (i.e., JB, and J2,B) is pre-
sented. Significant variability between the VAWTs and the airfoils is
predicted by JB from 29% to 59%, while the range of J2,B is only
28e32%. Table 3 summarizes the first and second law efficiencies,
predicted for the reference operating conditions.
4.2. Definition 2: specific effective velocity (V2 ¼ V2,eff  Aeff/A)
This definition suggests a high level of accuracy with the second
law, as it attempts to specify the acting flow stream on the turbine.
This definition can provide a high level of comparability between
different turbine designs and configurations. However, the precision
of analysis could be a problem with this definition, as it requires
a level of intuition from the analyst. Figs. 8e12b present the results of
varied reference conditions and operating conditions for Definition 2.
A noticeable reduction in variability is experienced between the
airfoils from Definition 2. Also, the exergetic variability between the
airfoils and VAWTs is reduced. Difficulties in defining the effective
area for an airfoil could be a contributing factor to this result.
In this paper, the effective area was assumed as the high speed
flow stream directed above the airfoil, with the total area taken to be
the chord length. This definition does not fully represent the
differences in geometry between the airfoils, as the effects of tail
Fig. 10. Energy and exergy efficiencies with varying V1, constant V2 for (a) point specific low velocity, (b) specific effective velocity, (c) effective velocity and (d) average low velocity.
curvature are not fully represented. Defining the effective area for
the VAWT is comparatively straightforward. A low velocity flow
stream is evident in the locations where a significant kinetic force is
applied. An effective area is assumed as the cross-sectional area of
this flow stream, with a total area assumed to be the turbine diam-
eter. A notable result from Definition 2 is illustrated in Fig.11b, where
the airfoil second law efficiencies exhibit a non-linear reduction in
efficiency, falling rapidly after the reference wind velocity of 10 m/s.
The VAWT second law efficiencies display a slight linear increase.
The high values of V2 suggested from Definition 2 produce the lowest
predictions of J throughout the study.
4.3. Definition 3: average velocity of useful area (V2 ¼ V2,useful,ave)
Definition 3 predicts the largest range in V2, with 9.5 m/s for the
NACA 63(2)-215 airfoil, compared to 3.1 m/s for the Zephyr VAWT.
A high dependence on the streamline configuration of the turbine
is obtained by this definition. A high level of precision is attainable,
compared with Definition 2, since the value is independent of size
for the effective area. The analysis of Definition 2 reveals an output
for J that is evenly distributed at the reference conditions and
throughout most of the varied operating conditions. Similar to
Definition 2, the relatively high values of V2 for the airfoil translate
into low second law efficiencies. However, the VAWTs are less
affected. From Fig. 11c, the profile of an airfoil can significantly
affect the second law efficiency. The basic profile of the NACA 63(2)-
215 exhibits only a slight reduction in second law efficiency,
compared to the FX 63-137. A decreasing trend, which increases its
 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113
Fig. 11. Energy and exergy efficiencies with varying V1, constant V1/V2: (a) point specific low velocity, (b) specific effective velocity, (c) effective velocity, (d) average low velocity.
rate of reduction throughout the plot, is predicted for the more
complex FX 63-137. At the upper boundary of V1, the second law
efficiency of the FX 63-137 airfoil falls below the value for the
Savonius VAWT.
4.4. Definition 4: average of the low velocity stream
This definition suggests a relatively even distribution of V2
amongst the various systems. This translates into evenly distrib-
uted second law efficiencies, at the given reference operating
conditions illustrated in Figs. 8e12d. Similar to the other defini-
tions, little effect is exhibited from altering the reference pressure.
This definition suggests a high variability between the airfoil
second law efficiencies. Similar to Definition 3, the second law
efficiency for the NACA 63(2)-215 airfoil deteriorates rapidly
throughout the range of V1, dropping below the Savonius second
law efficiency within the operating velocity. The declining NACA 63
(2)-215 airfoil second law efficiency suggests that this definition
can give insight into the interdependence of the geometric profile,
operating conditions, and turbine performance.
Fig. 12 compares the various definitions of V2 in terms of exdest,
assuming V2/V1 is maintained constant. Many of the previous
results can be understood through the exergy destruction. The first
definition of V2 predicts similar exergy destruction for the airfoils
and VAWTs, respectively. It appears that this definition fails to fully
represent the differences in flow irreversibilities between all
systems. Better results would likely occur from Definitions 3 and 4,
2111
whereby a greater range of variability is predicted between the
various systems.
These case studies have compared the first and second law
efficiencies of four wind energy systems. Difficulties exhibited
with applying the exergetic analysis have been identified and
preliminary solutions were obtained. The definition of V2 has been
identified as a key component for implementing the second law in
regular wind power analysis, optimization and design. The second
law provides a valuable design tool that can help improve the
efficiency and economic cost of wind power. Improvements to
system output, development and installation can contribute to
wind power systems alleviating the substantial demand from
traditional non-renewable energy sources. There is an urgent
need to alter these current consumption and production patterns.
Combustion of vast quantities of fossil fuels for power production
is responsible for numerous environmental problems. The emis-
sions from hydrocarbon combustion contain pollution agents
including NOx, SOx, CO and CO2. These chemicals are connected to
a variety of environmental degradation problems, including acid
rain, smog, and greenhouse gases that contribute to climate
change.
To ensure that wind energy capacity is fully utilized, the
turbine design must be optimized to operate in various wind
conditions. A second law analysis can contribute to improving the
wind turbine design, system efficiency and power output. Signif-
icant reductions in the environmental impact of energy generation
methods can be achieved through efficiency improvements via the
second law. Wind power can provide a sustainable contribution to
2112 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113

Fig. 12. Specific exergy destruction with varying V1, constant V2/V1 for (a) point specific low velocity, (b) specific effective velocity, (c) effective velocity and (d) average low velocity.

Table 3 Acknowledgements
Various predicted first and second law efficiencies.

h [%] J [%] J2 [%] JB [%] J2,B [%] hKE [%] JKE [%] JKE,2 [%] The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this
NACA 63(2)-215 44 21 22 29 30 39 19 20
research provided by Zephyr Alternative Power Inc. and the Natural
airfoil Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.
FX 63-137 airfoil 47 23 22 30 28 59 29 27
Savonius VAWT 18 17 10 55 32 94 87 51
Zephyr VAWT 11 10 6 59 32 93 93 59
References

society's energy needs. The minimal impact caused by wind
turbine manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and operation
can be further reduced through efficiency improvements and
enhanced design methodologies that use the second law of
thermodynamics.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the first and second laws were used to compare the
performance of a variety of wind power systems. Exergy analysis
was shown to allow a diverse range of geometric and operating
designs to be compared with a common metric. The results indicate
a 50e53% difference in first and second law efficiencies for the
airfoil systems, and 44e55% for the VAWTs. Exergy is a useful
parameter in wind power engineering, as it can represent a wide
variety of turbine operating conditions, with a single unified metric.
Through exergy methods, better site selection and turbine design
can improve system efficiency, decrease economic cost, and
increase capacity of wind energy systems.
[1] WWEA. Wind turbines generate more than 1% of the global electricity.
Charles-de-Gaulle-Str, 5, 53113 Bonn, Germany: World Wind Energy Associ-
ation; 2008.
[2] Rohatgi J, Barbezier G. Wind turbulence and atmospheric stability e their
effect on wind turbine output. Renewable Energy 1999;16(1):908e11.
[3] Ameku K, Nagai BM, Roy JN. Design of a 3 kW wind turbine generator with
thin airfoil blades. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 2008;32:1723e30.
[4] Mayer C. The starting behaviour of a small horizontal-axis wind turbine.
Renewable Energy 2001;22:411e7.
[5] Wang F, Bai L, Fletcher J, Whiteford J, Cullen D. Development of small domestic
wind turbine with scoop and prediction of its annual power output. Renew-
able Energy 2008;33:1637e51.
[6] Hirahara H, Hossain MZ, Kawahashi M, Nonomura Y. Testing basic perfor-
mance of a very small wind turbine designed for multi-purposes. Renewable
Energy 2005;30:1279e97.
[7] Dincer I, Rosen M. Exergy: energy, environment & sustainable development.
Burlington, Massachusetts: Elsvier Ltd.; 2007.
[8] Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. 5th ed.
Nevada, Reno: McGraw Hill; 2006.
[9] Adeyinka O, Naterer GF. Entropy-based metric for component-level energy
management: application to diffuser performance. International Journal of
Energy Research 2005;29(11):1007e24.
[10] Naterer GF. Entropy based design of fuel cells. Journal of Fuel Cell Science and
Technology 2006;3(2):165e74.
[11] Uche J. Exergy costs and inefficiency diagnosis of a dual-purpose power and
desalination plant. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 2006;128
(3):186e92.
 K. Pope et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2102e2113
[12] Jassim R. Exergy analysis of carryover leakage irreversibilities of a power plant
regenerative air heater. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engi-
neers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 2004;218(1):23e32.
[13] Sahin, AD, Dincer, I, and Rosen, MA. Development of new spatio-temporal
wind exergy maps, Proceedings of ASME2006 Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, November 5e10, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 2006
[14] Sahin AD, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic analysis of wind energy.
International Journal of Energy Research 2006;30:553e66.
[15] Selig MS. Wind tunnel aerodynamic tests of six airfoils for use on small wind
turbines. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 2004;126(4):986e1001.
[16] Martinez GG, Sorensen JN, Shen WZ. 3D boundary layer study on a rotating
wind turbine blade. Journal of Physics - Conference Series 2007;75(1):
012032e9.
[17] ANSYS Inc. Fluent 6.3 users guide. Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317, USA:
ANSYS Inc, Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive; 2006.
[18] ANSYS Inc. Gambit 2.3.16 users guide. Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317, USA:
ANSYS Inc, Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive; 2005.
2113
[19] Saha U. Optimum design configuration of Savonius rotor through wind tunnel
experiments. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
2008;96(8):1359e75.
[20] Biswas A, Gupta R, Sharma KK. Experimental investigation of overlap and
blockage effects on three-bucket Savonius rotors. Wind Engineering 2007;31
(5):313e68.
[21] Gupta R, Biswas A, Sharma KK. Comparative study of a three-bucket Savonius
rotor with a combined three-bucket Savoniusethree-bladed Darrieus rotor.
Renewable Energy 2008;33:1974e81.
[22] Pope K, Naterer GF, Tsang E. Effects of rotor-stator geometry on vertical axis
wind turbine performance. Ottawa, Canada.: Canadian Society for Mechanical
Engineers 2008 forum, June 5-8; 2008.
[23] Zecher JB. A new approach to an accurate wind chill factor. Bulletin of the
American Meteorology Society 1999;80(9):1893e9.
[24] Wilson RE, Lissaman PB, Walker SN. Aerodynamic performance of wind
turbines. Energy research and development administration, ERDA/NSF/
04014e76/1; 1976