This paper presents a report of some of the activities of the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Wind TCP Task 39. By identifying best practices in an international collaboration, Task 39 hopes to provide the scientific evidence to inform improved regulations and standards, increasing the effectiveness of quiet wind turbine technology. Task 39 is divided into five separate work packages, which address the broad wind turbine noise topic in successive steps; from wind turbine noise generation (WP2), to airborne noise propagation over large distances (WP3). The assessment of wind turbine noise and its impact on humans is addressed in WP4, while WP5 is dealing with other aspects of perception and acceptance, which may be related to noise. All WPs contribute to a dedicated Work Package on dissemination (WP1). This paper provides an update of activities primarily associated with the socio-psychological aspects of wind turbine noise (WP4 and WP5). Through the consideration of a wide variety of factors, including measurement technologies, auralisation and psychology, the effects on noise perception, annoyance and its impact on wellbeing and health is being further investigated. This paper presents a discussion of the activities of each member country and highlights some of the key research questions that need to be further considered.
LINK
tract Micro wind turbines can be structurally integrated on top of the solid base of noise barriers near highways. A number of performance factors were assessed with holistic experiments in wind tunnel and in the field. The wind turbines underperformed when exposed in yawed flow conditions. The theoretical cosθ theories for yaw misalignment did not always predict power correctly. Inverter losses turned out to be crucial especially in standby mode. Combination of standby losses with yawed flow losses and low wind speed regime may even result in a net power consuming turbine. The micro wind turbine control system for maintaining optimal power production underperformed in the field when comparing tip speed ratios and performance coefficients with the values recorded in the wind tunnel. The turbine was idling between 20%–30% of time as it was assessed for sites with annual average wind speeds of three to five meters per second without any power production. Finally, the field test analysis showed that inadequate yaw response could potentially lead to 18% of the losses, the inverter related losses to 8%, and control related losses to 33%. The totalized loss led to a 48% efficiency drop when compared with the ideal power production measured before the inverter. Micro wind turbine’s performance has room for optimization for application in turbulent wind conditions on top of noise barriers. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14051288
DOCUMENT
This paper assesses wind resource characteristics and energy yield for micro wind turbines integrated on noise barriers. An experimental set-up with sonic anemometers placed on top of the barrier in reference positions is realized. The effect on wind speed magnitude, inflow angle and turbulence intensity is analysed. The annual energy yield of a micro wind turbine is estimated and compared using data from a micro-wind turbine wind tunnel experiment and field data. Electrical energy costs are discussed as well as structural integration cost reduction and the potential energy yield could decrease costs. It was found that instantaneous wind direction towards the barrier and the height of observation play an influential role for the results. Wind speed increases in perpendicular flows while decreases in parallel flow, by +35% down to −20% from the reference. The azimuth of the noise barrier expressed in wind field rotation angles was found to be influential resulted in 50%–130% changes with respect to annual energy yield. A micro wind turbine (0.375 kW) would produce between 100 and 600 kWh annually. Finally, cost analysis with cost reductions due to integration and the energy yield changes due to the barrier, show a LCOE reduction at 60%–90% of the reference value. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104206
DOCUMENT
