📣 Standalone, Lidar-only RES wind campaign is bankable and ready to build to build says DNV at consented Cairn Duhie Wind Farm...
➡ “The industry [has] confidence in the flexibility and suitability of lidar to deliver the accurate data that is fundamental to developing wind power projects with well managed project risk as deemed by Independent Engineers” Karen Anne Hutton, RES
➡ “The ZX 300 Lidar has been proven to be a reliable standalone tool for wind resource assessment’ Paul Leask, DNV
➡ “Crucially [with Lidar] we can do this quicker, more flexibly, with better safety and lower risk of accident and injury.” John Boyce, RES
📑 Read the article below -
https://lnkd.in/eYD7ZzPM#zxlidars#lidar#windmeasurement#onshorewind#renewableenergy#windfarm#windenergyPES Wind
It's something we get asked about a lot at ZX. Can you use Lidar standalone, without the need for a met mast? Here's a great summary of why that's not a question anymore for RES and DNV, it's a daily reality of modern wind farm development. Sincere thanks to Iain Campbell and Iain Cogle for your continued efforts in making Lidar projects happen, and progressing the industry in that regard.
📣 Standalone, Lidar-only RES wind campaign is bankable and ready to build to build says DNV at consented Cairn Duhie Wind Farm...
➡ “The industry [has] confidence in the flexibility and suitability of lidar to deliver the accurate data that is fundamental to developing wind power projects with well managed project risk as deemed by Independent Engineers” Karen Anne Hutton, RES
➡ “The ZX 300 Lidar has been proven to be a reliable standalone tool for wind resource assessment’ Paul Leask, DNV
➡ “Crucially [with Lidar] we can do this quicker, more flexibly, with better safety and lower risk of accident and injury.” John Boyce, RES
📑 Read the article below -
https://lnkd.in/eYD7ZzPM#zxlidars#lidar#windmeasurement#onshorewind#renewableenergy#windfarm#windenergyPES Wind
📣 Standalone, Lidar-only RES wind campaign is bankable and ready to build to build says DNV at consented Cairn Duhie Wind Farm...
➡ “The industry [has] confidence in the flexibility and suitability of lidar to deliver the accurate data that is fundamental to developing wind power projects with well managed project risk as deemed by Independent Engineers” Karen Anne Hutton, RES
➡ “The ZX 300 Lidar has been proven to be a reliable standalone tool for wind resource assessment’ Paul Leask, DNV
➡ “Crucially [with Lidar] we can do this quicker, more flexibly, with better safety and lower risk of accident and injury.” John Boyce, RES
📑 Read the article below -
https://lnkd.in/eYD7ZzPM#zxlidars#lidar#windmeasurement#onshorewind#renewableenergy#windfarm#windenergyPES Wind
Can you deploy lidars on their own for bankable projects?
It’s a question we get asked a lot at ZX Lidars, the easiest answer is to look offshore. It’s great to see the onshore application of lidar only campaigns in the public eye…
Derisking Offshore Wind Projects with Dual Scanning Lidar.
Uncertain wind resource assessments can significantly impact project feasibility and financing. Dual Scanning Lidar (DSL) offers a game-changing solution by providing highly accurate wind data, minimizing risk and improving project bankability. Additionally, it measures Turbulence Intensity (TI), a crucial factor for selecting the optimal wind turbine for your project.
Have a look at our short introduction video ! A large amount of commercial projects have been successfully realized thanks to DSL. #windenergy#offshore#lidar#renewableenergy
In the second of our series on the effects of offshore wind developments on seabird populations in Australia, we explore the benefits of grid-based surveys and why bird flight height data using LiDAR is the preeminent method for accuracy and precision.
Read here: https://lnkd.in/eTAMqxw6#Renewables#OffshoreWind#WindEnergy#Australia#LiDAR
Replacement of met masts on operational sites is an excellent use case for Lidar. It avoids the challenges of managing met masts and the need for annual calibrations. With a low cost of ownership and simple installation, the ZX300 can deliver valuable data to support both wind farm optimisation and grid compliance. #zxlidars#windenergy
📣 Irish grid operator, EirGrid Group, has taken a leadership position in approving the use of #Lidar for grid compliance measurements on operational wind farms.
The ZX 300 wind #Lidar offers an easy and cost effective method to achieve grid compliance without the need for the planning, logistics and visual impacts of traditional meteorological towers. The response to this approval has been strong within the Irish wind market, with ZX Trusted Service Provider Galetech Group successfully delivering several permanent ZX 300 wind Lidar installations on operational wind farms recently.
Pictured here is one such installation at the Energia owned and operated Drumlin Park Wind Farm in County Monaghan, Ireland.
Cormac McPhillips of Galetech said, “This is a really neat use of Lidar technology. This solution is substantially more cost-effective for measuring hub height wind speed compared to more conventional permanent meteorological masts. The simplicity of the solution, combined with the quality of the wind data, makes this an easy decision for new wind farm projects”.
Read more about permanent met Lidars ➡ https://lnkd.in/edzSjGUF#zxlidars#Galetechmeasurementservices#onshorewind#windlidar#windmeasurement#renewableenergy
"Garbage in, garbage out" started out as an old computing phrase. Now with so much data, most everyone realizes that we need to be careful with data. But that is easier said than done, especially when there are so many variables that can impact the data gathering. I encourage you to read Bryan Staley's post regarding this topic.
Not quite the same situation, but I had an experience in my consulting days where leachate head level measurements with a level tape were highly variable. Conversations with field staff, checking equipment operation and calibration, etc. didn't explain it.
Ultimately, we installed real-time liquid level monitoring using a pressure transducer, and we found a cyclical pattern that repeated on about a daily basis. So we compared the level data to barometric pressure, sunrise and sunset, as well as moonrise and set. But we found no correlation.
While jetting the gravity leachate line, a downstream cleanout lid blew off. So we thought maybe gas pressure was building up a bit in the line and influencing the level readings. But that didn't make sense with the original level tape readings.
After the jetting and while viewing camera footage, we noticed evidence of a belly in the leachate line. We were curious how big a belly it was but all we knew was the line became fully submerged. So we ultimately decided to profile the liquid depth using the pressure transducer along the part of the pipe length.
After some further head scratching, we deduced the belly in the leachate line was acting like the a P-trap under a sink. However, that would mean the liquid level should remain consistent. In our case, the liquid came up to a certain level slowly and then rapidly lowered.
💡 Maybe this is like the S-trap in a toilet! The leachate head builds up and reaches the critical "flush" level, the level rapidly lowers, and the cycle repeats.
So at the end of the day, the original field data wasn't wrong. Instead, we had the wrong expectation of what should be happening based on our experience, which gave us bias. It took a lot of effort to figure out what really was the cause.
For those of you reading to the end and trying to follow the technical argument for the S-trap, you are right that there needs to be more bellies downstream for this theory to be valid and/or gas pressure. Unfortunately, we couldn't get the camera or pressure transducer far enough downstream of the belly to confirm things. But the theory was generally accepted.
President at Environmental Research & Education Foundation
How can measuring something with >95% accuracy result in it being wrong most of the time? While such a notion may seem absurd, it's possible... even probable... depending on how these measurements are performed.
The issue boils down to measurement frequency. For example, measurement technologies currently used to quantify methane emissions, such as spectroscopy and LiDAR can have extremely high accuracy rates. In this respect, the accuracy of the instrument is not particularly in question.
However, if one is trying to measure emissions when these measurement technologies are mounted on things that tend to be used at a low measurement frequency (e.g. satellites, planes, drones, ground based detection), and emissions are from a complex source that has emissions occurring 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (such as landfills) then there is the potential for significant error to be introduced if a goal is to quantify total site emissions over the course of a year.
For example, a satellite or aircraft could take 8 measurements over a 2 month period (roughly once a week during this period) and each measurement could be pretty accurate. The issue here is that substantial assumptions must be made regarding what the emissions rate is at all other times during the course of the year.
Given the dynamic nature of landfill operation, where primary activities such as gas well repair, installation and waste placement tend to occur at different times of the day and year, along with demonstrated behavior such as diurnal variation of emissions and meteorological factors, making such an assumption is inherently flawed.
Some initial work underway comparing snapshot measurements to continuous measurements suggest that snapshot measurements can induce substantial error compared to continuous measurements. Thus, it cannot be assumed that snapshot measurements, even though they may be made by highly accurate instrumentation, offer an accurate comparative benchmark for estimating annual emissions from a landfill. More research is needed to validate how frequency of measurements impact the accuracy of annual emissions inventories if direct measurement strategies are to be used. This is one of a number of current challenges in direct measurement that are being evaluated by EREF to further the ability to measure methane emissions which can lead to improved mitigation strategies.
#EREF#LandfillOperations#Landfill#MethaneMeasurement#MethaneEmissions
How can measuring something with >95% accuracy result in it being wrong most of the time? While such a notion may seem absurd, it's possible... even probable... depending on how these measurements are performed.
The issue boils down to measurement frequency. For example, measurement technologies currently used to quantify methane emissions, such as spectroscopy and LiDAR can have extremely high accuracy rates. In this respect, the accuracy of the instrument is not particularly in question.
However, if one is trying to measure emissions when these measurement technologies are mounted on things that tend to be used at a low measurement frequency (e.g. satellites, planes, drones, ground based detection), and emissions are from a complex source that has emissions occurring 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (such as landfills) then there is the potential for significant error to be introduced if a goal is to quantify total site emissions over the course of a year.
For example, a satellite or aircraft could take 8 measurements over a 2 month period (roughly once a week during this period) and each measurement could be pretty accurate. The issue here is that substantial assumptions must be made regarding what the emissions rate is at all other times during the course of the year.
Given the dynamic nature of landfill operation, where primary activities such as gas well repair, installation and waste placement tend to occur at different times of the day and year, along with demonstrated behavior such as diurnal variation of emissions and meteorological factors, making such an assumption is inherently flawed.
Some initial work underway comparing snapshot measurements to continuous measurements suggest that snapshot measurements can induce substantial error compared to continuous measurements. Thus, it cannot be assumed that snapshot measurements, even though they may be made by highly accurate instrumentation, offer an accurate comparative benchmark for estimating annual emissions from a landfill. More research is needed to validate how frequency of measurements impact the accuracy of annual emissions inventories if direct measurement strategies are to be used. This is one of a number of current challenges in direct measurement that are being evaluated by EREF to further the ability to measure methane emissions which can lead to improved mitigation strategies.
#EREF#LandfillOperations#Landfill#MethaneMeasurement#MethaneEmissions
