Message-ID: <22908657.1075840445756.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 08:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: kevin.cousineau@enron.com
To: mark.fisher@enron.com, mark.ratekin@enron.com
Subject: Re: Consumption for for GE1.5
Cc: mark.eilers@enron.com, hollis.kimbrough@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mark.eilers@enron.com, hollis.kimbrough@enron.com
X-From: Kevin Cousineau
X-To: Mark Fisher, Mark Ratekin
X-cc: Mark Eilers, Hollis Kimbrough
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \mark fischer 7-12-02\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: FISCHER-M
X-FileName: mark fischer 7-12-02 LNotes.nsf

Mark Eilers, Fisher and Ratekin: 

Mark Ratekin has in his possession an IEC standard power curve for the 
Tehachapi 1.5 Turbine. This power curve shows both the power produced and the 
power cunsumed below cut in wind speeds. The consumed power can be binned 
just like the production curve to produce a "energy consumed" for any given 
wind site. 

Perhaps Mark Ratekin can forward this curve to Mark Fisher for this type of 
analysis. 

Regards 

KLC 






Mark Fisher
05/13/2002 04:53 PM
To: Mark Eilers/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc: Hollis Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Cousineau/EWC/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Consumption for for GE1.5  

Mark,

Will they be using some method of separating power going into  turbine from 
power coming out of the turbine? And would it be done on a turbine by turbine 
basis or would they measure at the substation? And do you know what period 
they would be using for measurement (10 minutes, hourly, daily, etc.)? 
Clarifying these might make it easier to determine what we might be able to 
figure out.

The VisuPro data collection has a consumption counter as well as a production 
counter (energy, i.e. kWh). However, both counters are net counters, so for a 
measurement period either one or the other will increment [or possibly 
neither] (VisuPro is currently set to use a 5.5 minute measurement period). 
Since the counters are net counters we don't really know the true consumption.

In a discussion between Hollis and Kevin, it was suggested that the way to 
know what the parasitic load was would be to put instruments on a turbine and 
measure what the load actually is. For further information on this you might 
contact Kevin.

Hope this helps.

Mark Fisher






Mark Eilers
05/13/2002 03:25 PM
To: Mark Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron
cc:  

Subject: Consumption for for GE1.5

Mark 

Is there any way to get an idea what we are seeing for parasitic demand for 
our large projects in TX as a more representative number. Let me know. 

Mark 
---------------------- Forwarded by Mark Eilers/EWC/Enron on 05/13/2002 05:24 
PM ---------------------------


Mark Eilers
05/13/2002 03:07 PM
To: Tom Nemila/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Peder Hansen/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Erik 
Ellis/EWC/Enron@Enron
cc: Alan Nueman/EWC/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Consumption for for GE1.5

Gentlemen

I need to know the power consumption level for the GE1.5, non cold weather.   
I heard 40kW which seems too high for the non-CWL or CWE.  It is also my 
understanding that the Eickhoff GB did not need to have the 35kW for 
lubercation (backup power issue).  

FPL is wanting to know the outcome of this issue so they can determine their 
demand charges.  Just so you know, the New Mexico project (200 mW) has a 
demand charge of $6/kW/mth so; 136 units * 40kW * $6 = $32,640/mth or 
$391,680/yr in demand charges.    

Mark