Message-ID: <5685821.1075840445898.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: mark.eilers@enron.com
To: kevin.cousineau@enron.com
Subject: Re: Consumption for for GE1.5
Cc: mark.ratekin@enron.com, mark.fisher@enron.com, hollis.kimbrough@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: mark.ratekin@enron.com, mark.fisher@enron.com, hollis.kimbrough@enron.com
X-From: Mark Eilers
X-To: Kevin Cousineau
X-cc: Mark Ratekin, Mark Fisher, 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

Kevin

I'm glad your clarified what information was to be gotten out of the 
attachment as I was scratching my head over that one.  

I think your approach of reviewing the an existing project is a good one.  I 
know that Mark F. has done some work on this issue (see that attachment) 
which we can build on.  I do have a concern about using Montfort given that 
it is a cold weather turbine and a low wind site which can lead to an 
overstatement of power consumption depending on how the analysis is done.  
That being said, we will need to get an idea of the power consumption for the 
CWE and CWL but the immediate task is for FPL New Mexico which we are 
thinking is a standard unit.  

Given that the cumulative load (on paper) per WTG is ~40kW, of which a 
majority is the yaw motors, I would think that there is a low probability 
that all the yaw motors will be drawing (in a pre synchronous mode) at the 
same time, therefore, perhaps a statistical solution like taking the square 
root of the number of WTGs in the park times 40kW is a statically valid 
approach in determining "possible" peak power demand for a given period.  
Furthermore, should this become an important issue for the owner I am sure 
some solution could be make in the WTG to mitigate peak power demand in the 
park.     

So in summary, my feeling is that we look at a non-CW park to generate 
empirical comsumption data that can then be compared to the above statistical 
approach and see how they compare.  

Mark 








Kevin Cousineau
05/15/2002 07:25 AM
To: Mark Ratekin/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mark Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron, Mark Eilers/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Hollis 
Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Consumption for for GE1.5  

Mark, Mark and Mark: 

I have reviewed the attached power curve and clearly it will not help in 
formulating an answer to your question. 

I would like to ask Mark Fisher to look at a typical installation (any one of 
our field sites) and give us data on kWh consumed by several turbines over a 
multi-month period with data arranged month by month. Perhaps one or two 
turbines at Monfort would be the best because we can look at a whole year of 
data. This would tell us what was produced and what was consumed in energy. 

Mark Eilers, what do you think? 

Regards 

KLC 



Mark Ratekin
05/14/2002 04:24 PM
To: Kevin Cousineau/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc: Mark Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron, Mark Eilers/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Hollis 
Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: Re: Consumption for for GE1.5  

Attached is the final power curve results from the Tehachapi 1.5 Prototype, 
which includes the power consumption.  The page was scanned from the NREL 
Test Report.  If you have any questions or need the entire document feel free 
to contact me.



Best Regards,

Mark