CASE STUDY ON MUPPANDAL

WINDFARM
WIND ENERGY IN INDIA
 On average, across the country, the generation
cost of wind is around Rs.3.5–Rs.3.6 per kWh.
 Table shows the installed wind power capacity in
India and also shows that the state of Tamil
Nadu leads in installed capacity of wind energy.
INTRODUCTION:

 Tamilnadu contributes
about 25% of total wind
power generation in
india.
Muppandal windfarm
has a total capacity of
1500 MW .
PROFILE OF MUPPANDAL WINDFARM:
 wind farm is situated in and around the Aralvoimozhi
Pass, Kanyakumari District, Southern Tamil Nadu.
 Tamil Nadu is endowed with three prominent passes
having high wind potential, due to the tunnelling
effect during south west monsoon
 The annual average wind speed (km/hour) in this
pass ranges between 19 and 25 km/h.
 Kanyakumari district is situated in southernmost tip
of Indian mainland and its geographical coordinates
are Kanyakumari that is located at latitude 8º05’N
and 8°08’N and longitude of 77º34’E and 77°57’E. The
average elevation of Kanyakumari is zero metres.
MUPPANDAL WINDFARM
 Muppandal windfarm in Kanyakumari district
lies in the range of 3.44–.18 m/s wind velocity
with wind power density ranging from 193.3
W/m2 to 558.4 W/m2 at 30 m hub height.
 Windmills of different capacities installed in
Muppandal wind farm are given as
DATA COLLECTION
 The study is limited to selected windmills with
rated power of 225, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 750
kW. The total number of windmills in Muppandal
region is 483.
 The unit cost of electricity, NPV, discounted
payback period, benefit cost ratio, internal rate of
return are calculated to find the economic
viability of investments made in the wind farm.
 The values were calculated for different rating
capacities of windmills installed in the selected
wind farm.
UNITARY COST
where Uc is production cost per unit of electricity
generated (rupees/kWh), n is economic lifetime of
the wind turbine, I is initial investment cost
during installing the wind turbine (rupees), OMt
is operation and maintenance costs during the t
year (rupees), Ft is financing cost in a particular
year, r is discount rate and EOt is annual energy
output in
DISCOUNTED PAYBACK PERIOD (DPBP)
 It is the time period required for an investment
to create a positive cash flow or recover the cost
of an investment. The payback period is the time
period by which the initial investment cost is
recovered.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Performance of windmills:
 The unit cost of electricity produced from
windmills depends on the annual energy output
of the windmills.
 The output for all windmills is calculated by
taking the average capacity factor of 33%.
 Table shows the annual energy output of each
turbine along with the capacity factor.
ANNUAL ENERGY OUTPUT

 It can be observed that the mean annual power

output ranges from 650,430 kW/year to 1,445,400
kW/year.
 It is interesting to note that wind turbine with
the highest rated power of 750 does not produce
the maximum output.
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL PROFITABILITY
ANALYSIS

 The calculated values for unit costs of electricity,

NPV, DPBP, IRR and BCR, are given in Table for
the selected wind turbines.
 The economic analysis revealed that all turbines
(with different rating capacity) are economically
viable but the wind turbine with 250 kW rated
power has the shortest payback period.
 The installation of lower rated windmills such as 225
kW and 250 kW windmills is found to be economically
viable before 1999 and post-1999 only higher rated
windmills are found to be economically viable.
 The unit cost of electricity (per kWh) has steadily
increased over the years due to the rise in investment
costs.
 The average discounted payback period for all
windmills is nine years and two months.
 A higher rate of profitability was also seen from
installing higher rated power windmills.
 The cost of generation is the lowest in the case of
higher rated power windmills.
 On average, the Muppandal wind farm has high wind
speed of 6.97 m/s and power density of 373.1. This does
not happen at all wind farms. This leads to a higher
capacity factor. This resulted in higher generation of
output from higher rated power windmills as the
average capacity factor was taken to be 33%.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
 The result of the economic and financial analysis of
differently rated power windmills shows that most of
the windmill power projects are economically viable
and financially profitable when valued at the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) buying rate.
 It was found that the medium-rated power (i.e. 600
kW) WTGs performance is the lowest on all counts. It
is found that NPV is the highest for 750 kW rating
WTGs in Muppandal farm. Considering the volatility
of energy markets and difficulty of huge investments it
would be wise to choose 250 kW WTGs which are very
economical.
 Considering improved technology, volatility of energy
markets, it is advisable to go for the wind turbine with
the shortest payback period.
 Moreover, it is advised to select for higher rated power
(capacity) windmills in Muppandal for higher
profitability and a reduced rate of electricity from wind
energy.
 This economic study helps towards the appropriate
selection of wind energy systems and the pricing of
energy which can go a long way towards ensuring
sustainability through wind energy
REFERENCES
 Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R. and Vermeulen, W. (2009)
‘The relative importance of social and institutional
conditions in the planning of wind power projects’,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13,
pp.393–405.
 Bell, J. and Booth, E. (2010) The Economic Benefits of on-
Farm Wind Energy Clusters in Aberdeenshire, SAC
Consulting, Aberdeen.
 Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2012) Global Trends in
Renewable Energy Investment 2012, Frankfurt School of
Finance & Management gGmbH, Frankfurt.
 C-WET (2012) Information, Centre for Wind Energy
Technology (C-WET). Available online at:
http://www.cwet.tn.nic.in (accessed on 31 October 2013).
 Gökçek, M. and Genç, M. (2009) ‘Evaluation of electricity
generation and energy cost of wind energy conversion
systems (WECSs) in Central Turkey’, Applied Energy, Vol.
86, No. 12, pp.2731–2739.