HOME

OZ-ENERGY-ANALYSIS.ORG   -   open science for the new millennium

THE STORIES   |   DATA   |   ANALYSIS   |   MODELS   |   LITERATURE   |   DISCUSSIONS

Wind Farm Generation Data

Introduction

This is Round Two data (first presented 6th August 2010); prior to this we worked with Round One data, which remains current in some other areas of the site.

The wind generation data we have is from AEMO (www.aemo.com.au); there are a set of files that have 5min generation data for ~20 assorted generators, going back to the end of 2005 in some cases. The source data is here:

http://www.nemweb.com.au/REPORTS/CURRENT/Next_Day_Actual_Gen/
http://www.nemweb.com.au/REPORTS/ARCHIVE/Next_Day_Actual_Gen/    - in monthly zip files

We extract data for the following 13 Wind Farms:

State  NamePlate (MW)    DUID        Name
--------------------------------------------------------------
 SA        66          CATHROCK      Cathedral Rocks Wind Farm
 SA        80          LKBONNY1      Lake Bonney Wind Farm
 SA        70          MTMILLAR      Mt Millar Wind Farm
 SA        35          STARHLWF      Starfish Hill Wind Farm
 SA        91          WPWF          Wattle Point Wind Farm
 TAS      140          WOOLNTH1      Woolnorth Bluff Point Wind Farm
 VIC       30          YAMBUKWF      Yambuk Wind Farm
 NSW      140          CAPTL_WF      Capital Wind Farm
 VIC       52          CHALLHWF      Challicum Hills Wind Farm
 SA        46          CNUNDAWF      Canunda Wind Farm
 NSW       30          CULLRGWF      Cullerin Range Wind Farm
 VIC    164 102        PORTWF        Portland Wind Farm
 VIC      192          WAUBRAWF      Waubra Wind Farm

As examined below, this data is somewhat messy in the earlier years. Please be careful in using this data.

There remain unresolved issues with some data values, including negative value. At this point the data we give here is simply a collation of the AEMO data; at some point we will provide a cleaned version.

And please note the issues with "Portland" as in comment #8 below. For now it appears that the Portland data here is a combination of the Cape Bridgewater and Cape Nelson South Wind Farms, at a total capacity of 102 MW (and not 164).


Data Files

Extracting and collating the data from the many hundreds of individual AEMO files, we generate:
(i) Weekly averages (MW average) in a basic text / table format,
(ii) Daily totals (MW average) in a basic text / table format,
(iii) All data (5 min) for the above 13 WFs in OzEA flatfile format.

All data on a line per day basis. Open up in a basic text editor to inspect (no wrap). All values are in MW (i.e. the average output over the interval).


Data Characterisation and Descriptive Satistics

Right now just providing some plots:


Some of these data are clearly problematic for analysis in the earlier parts.
Will provide commentry shortly. [7th Aug 2010]


DISCUSSION: (on the wind farm generation data)


7

OzEA_DGWF0007

Francis
Subject: Round Two Wind Farm data
Date: 2010-08-07 (at 17:03:17)


Just marking transition to Round Two Wind Farm data. The Round one data can be found here.

8

OzEA_DGWF0008

dashpool
Subject: data issues
Date: 2010-09-18 (at 21:47:11)


Notes on data:
PORTWF data appears to be Cape Bridgewater+Cape Nelson (see http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindVic.html#Portland wind project), which is 102MW, not 172MW.

This is consistent with almost all the data, except an anomalous spike on 2010/03/04 to 160MW: neighbouring values (5mins) are 14.2 and 13MW. At the same time WPWF spikes to 133.1MW! Neighbouring values are 2 and 2MW.

CULLRGWF: negative spike at 2009-05-29. Given neighbouring data, looks like the minus sign is spurious (i.e. correct without the minus sign).

CAPTL_WF: negative spike at 2009-11-19. Given neighbouring data, looks like the minus sign is spurious (i.e. correct without the minus sign).

I just clipped the data between 0 and 1.2 times the rated capacity factor. The obvious data problems are a very small fraction of the number of data points.

Histograms are a good way of finding these particular data issues.

--
fc - thanks for noting these issues, and apologies for taking a while to respond here. Good use of the commenting system. For now have simply added notes in the head post, and a pointer to here, but will deal with the cleaning issue in time.

[Show Full Lists]


Post Comment:

A name or alias, email and concise subject are required. Your email will not be abused.
Comments are required to be polite and on topic (commenting etiquette)

Name:*
Email:*
Website:
Subject:*
What is the longhand for 'Oz'? :*


fc - March 2010