REVIEW OF ELECTRICITY

GENERATION AND WIND POTENTIAL

ASSESSMENT AT HURGHADA, EGYPT

BY

MATHIAS B. MICHAEL
071201359

MSc. RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

B59E42 RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
28TH FEBRUARY 2008

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.

 ABSTRACT
• Need for renewable energy in egypt
• Current state of electricity generation in egypt
• Description of original report
– Wind resource data
– Mathematical analysis
• Weibull probability paper were used to estimate weibull’s parameters (c and k)
• Mean power density at 10 and 70 metres was estimated
• WECS were analysed based on their Plant Load Factor and capacity factor
– Observations of the results
– Economic analysis
• Selection of suitable WECS
• Cost analysis and conclusion

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 ABSTRACT continue

• Aim and objective of the report is to review

and optimise the wind potential analysis of
the reports.
• Argument and discussion were made on
the original report
• Review analysis
– Mathematical analysis were reviewed
– Cost analysis were also reviewed
• Conclusion
Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
 INTRODUCTION

• Fast depleting reserves of fossil fuels and its associated environmental

pollution calls alternative environmental friendly sources of energy
• Renewable energy potential in Egypt;
– Hydro-electric
– Geothermal
– Wind
– Solar
• Large scale of wind power at Egypt not yet studied
• Wind energy assessment at Hurghada by previous authors
– Under-estimation
• New wind resource data (2006) by Egyptian Meteorological Authority.
• This report aims to re-assess the wind energy potential at Hurghada

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 CURRENT STATE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION

• About 50% of the energy requirement of Egypt is being imported

• Thermal plants generally meet Egyptian’s electricity demand
(18.11 giga watt) represents 84% of total generation

Table 1 Distribution of electricity generation

Energy Annual Annual

Source generation generation
(Gwh) (%)
Fossil fuels 65,771 84.74
Hydro-electric 11,619 14.97
Renewable
Total 232.8 0.3
77622.8 100

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
WIND RESOURCE DATA

• New wind resource data

– 2006
• More than 30
meteorological stations
were analysed in the
wind Atlas of Egypt
• Resource data of
Hurghada at 10m height
(23 years period)

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT

ANNUAL WIND SPEEDS @ 10 METRES HEIGHT

Month 0.5-1.5 2-3.1 3.6-5.2 5.7-8.2 8.7-10.8 11.3-13.9 14.4-17 ≥17.5 Mean Wind
Speed

January 8 12 22.3 35.7 13.8 5.9 1.1 0.1 5.8

February 7.3 11 21.3 30.8 15.9 9.6 1.8 0.2 6.3
March 8.2 11.3 20 27.5 15.8 11.9 3 0.3 6.5
April 11.3 12 18.2 25.4 15.4 11.6 3.3 0.3 6.4
May 7.8 9.8 17.3 29.3 17.9 13.5 2.9 0.4 6.9
June 6 7.5 15 30.6 21.9 16 2.2 0.1 7.4
July 8.8 10.4 16.7 30.1 18.8 12 1.5 0 6.6
August 7.8 9.8 17.3 31.5 19.9 10.4 1.3 0 6.6
September 4.5 7.1 15.4 33.2 23.6 13.7 1.6 0 7

October 10.4 11.6 20.1 31.4 16 7.2 0.7 0 5.8

November 11.6 13.5 21.9 35.2 12.1 4 0.3 0.1 5.3

December 9.4 13.6 22.1 35.2 12.7 4.9 0.4 0 5.5

Annual 8.4 10.8 19 31.3 17 10.1 1.7 0.1 6.4

Mean

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
Seasonal wind speed
Season 0.5-15 2-3.1 3.6-5.2 5.7-8.2 8.7-10.8 11.3-13.9 14.4-17 ≥17.5 AV.WIND Wind direct

Winter 8.2 12.2 21.9 33.9 14.1 6.8 1.1 0.1 5.9 330 NW

Spring 9.1 11 18.5 27.4 16.4 12.3 3.1 0.3 6.6 331 NW

Summer 7.5 9.2 16.3 30.7 20.2 12.8 1.7 0 6.9 332 NW

Autumn 8.8 10.7 19.1 33.3 17.2 8.3 0.9 0 6 333 NW

Annual mean 8.4 10.8 19 31.3 17 10.1 1.7 0.1 6.4 334 NW

m e a s ure d va lue s of f% Winter

Spring
40 Summer
Summer
30
Frequency (%)

20

10

0
0.5-1.5 2-3.1 3.6-5.2 5.7-8.2 8.7-10.8 11.3-13.9 14.4-17 ≥17.5
s p e d (m /s )

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
ln[ − ln(1 − F ( U ) ) ] = k ln U − k ln c
• Weibull parameters (c and k)
−1
– At height of 10 metres   z 
k a = k10 1 − 0.0881ln a 
– At desired height (hz) in   10 
metres n
 za 
• monthly mean power density ca = c10  
in kw/m2 month  10 
−1
– At height of 10 metres   z 
– At various height
n =  0.37 − 0.0881ln a  
  10  
• Plant load factor (PLF) and 3
720 1 _ __
Capacity Factor (Cf) Pmo = . ρ U (kW / m 2 month)
1000 2
3α ph Eout
h PLF = Cf =
ph = p10   pr
 10  Erated
Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS
Season Height (m) C (m/s) K n
• Low power law coefficient values
for high wind speeds (c10) 30 7.84 2.45

• Small values of k at Autumn and 50 8.72 2.58

Spring seasons indicate widely 70 9.53 2.67

spread data
• Large values of k at winter and
Spring 10 6.15 1.63 0.2099
30 7.75 1.8
Summer seasons
50 8.62 1.9
• Mean wind speeds of hurghada at 70 9.25 1.97
summer are 6.55 and 6.9 m/s at
10 meters Summer 10 6.55 2.05 0.2044
30 8.20 2.27
50 9.1 2.39
70 9.75 2.47

Autumn 10 5.83 1.82 0.2146

30 7.38 2.02
50 8.24 2.12
70 8.85 2.20

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS
Month P10 P70 (kW/m2 PLF @
(w/m2) month) Pr=1MW
• The monthly PLF values are
greater than 0.6 for 3 months January 119.72 37.09 0.37

(May, June and September) February 152.77 473.4 0.47

March 166.05 514.5 0.52

April 156.24 484.1 0.48

• Rated wind speed and
May 193.38 599.2 0.60
capacity factor analysis
June 235.61 730.0 0.73
– Observation
July 166.28 515.2 0.52
• Wind turbine with lower rated
speed produces more energy August 166.10 514.7 0.52

• Low rated speed has greater September 200.20 620.3 0.62

capacity factor. October 115.43 357.70 0.36

November 89.57 277.5 0.28

December 101.63 314.9 0.31

Annual mean 155.25 481.0 0.48

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

• Wind turbine with rated power more than 1000kW is

recommended
• Repower MM82 with a capacity of 2000kW
• Cost analysis;
• Assumptions
– Operational, maintenance and repair costs – 25% of annual cost of
turbine
– Interest rate and inflation rate – 15% and 12%
– Investment includes turbine price + 20% for civil works
– Scrap value – 10% of turbine price
– Life time of the machine – 20 years

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

• Turbine price – 1,850,000 1 + i   1 + i  

t
 1 +i 
t

PVC = I + Comr  1 −    −S 

Euros  r − i 
  1 + r    1 + r 
• Cost of civil work – 370,000
Euros r = 0.15
• Investment – 2,220,000 Euros i = 0.2

• OM & repair cost – 23,125

Euros Turbine output – 9,663,578 kwh
• Scrap – 222,000 Euros Output over 20yrs – (20 * 9,663,578 kWh)

Hence specific cost per kWh is 1.26 Euro cent

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSION

• Selection of turbine should be based on the available

mean wind speed at desire height.
• Analysis of turbine height of Repower MM82 and its
economic impact considered and comparing with other
turbines with relative rated power.
• Economic analysis will predict the economic viability of
the selected wind turbine.

• Review analysis is necessary

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 REVIEW
MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
• Determination of annual  z   zr 
average wind speed of U ( z ) / U ( z r ) = ln  ÷ ln 
various heights based on  z0   z0 
U(z) = Wind speed at various heights (20 – 100)
surface roughness lenght
U(zr) = Wind speed at reference height (10m)
Z0 = Surface roughness lenght

α
For Egyptian terrain, a roughness U ( z)  z 
=  
factor is 0.25 U ( zr )  zr 
α = Roughness factor

0.37 − 0.0881 ln (U ref )

α=
 z ref 
1 − 0.0881 ln 
 10 
Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
 REVIEW
OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

• Seasonal mean wind speed and the annual mean wind

speed @70m
– Weibull parameter (c) is greater than 9m/s for all 3 seasons
– 8.85 m/s for autumn
• Annual mean wind speed – 9.63 @ 70m
• This reflects the actual wind speed available @70m in
Hurghada.

Height (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Av.speed 6.4 7.4 8.1 8.56 8.9 9.3 9.6 9.9 10.15 10.3
(m/s)

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 REVIEW
OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

Turbine Model Height Pr Uci Ur Uco Eout Cf

(m) (kW) (m/s) (kW) kWh (%)
AN Bonus 1MW/54 70 1000 3 15 25 4,034,499 46
HSW 1000/57 70 1000 4 13 25 4,217,892 48
Nodex N90/2300kW 70 2300 3 13 25 11,129,760 42

Annual energy output and capacity of 3 different commercial wind turbines

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 REVIEW
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

• Economic assumption; same as Repower MM82

•Interest rate and inflation rate – 15% and 12%
•Investment includes turbine price + 20% for civil
works
•Scrap value – 10% of turbine price
•Life time of the machine – 20 years
•Operational, maintenance and repair costs – 25% of
annual cost of turbine

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 DISCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL REPORT
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

1 + i   1 + i  
t t
• Turbine price – US$2,300,000  1 +i 
PVC = I + Comr  1 −    −S 
• Cost of civil work – $ 460,000  r − i 
  1 + r    1 + r 
• Investment – $2,760,000 r = 0.15
• OM & repair cost – $28,750 i = 0.2
• Scrap value– US$ 276,000 t = 20 yrs

Turbine output – 11,129,699 kwh

• Present Value Cost
Output over 20yrs – (20 * 11,129,699 kWh)

Hence specific cost per kWh is US$ 1.38

Equivalent to 0.908 Euro cent
Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
 CONCLUSION

• Repower MM82 – not economical viable for Hurghada

station
• Low rated speed-High energy output; cannot always be
the best for every site
• Mean wind speed difference of 70m and 100m is
insignificant (0.4 m/s). Hence 70m hub height is the best
• Review analysis yields 0.27 Euro cent per kWh reduction

Mathias B Michael, MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

 REFERENCES

• Ahmed Shata A.S., Hanitsch, Electricity generation and Wind potential assessment at
Egypt, Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 141 – 148 , www.sciencedirect.com
• Al-Nasser W, Aihajraf S.,Al-Enizi A, Al-Awadhi L, Potential Wind Power general in the
Stake of Kuwait. Renew Energy 2005;30; 2149-61. www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
• Ahmed Shata A.S., Hanitsch, R. The potential of Electricity generation on the East
coast of Red Sea in Egypt, Renew Energy 2006;31;1597-615,
www.sciencedirect.com
• Manwell, J.F., McGowan, J.G., Rogers. A.L., Wind Energy Explained (Theory,
Design and Application, Publisher: John Wiley & Sons,LTD, USA, 2006