SPONSORS OF GEARBOX V DD
GEARBOX V DIRECT DRIVE? ......OR IS THERE ANOTHER WAY? The debate as to whether or not
SIZE AND WEIGHT
the conventional wind turbine drive train with a gearbox at its centre or whether the direct drive concept is better has been aired for many years now and the arguments from both sides are well known.
PERSONAL BIASED CONSIDERATION Naturally depending on where you stand your argument will tend to favour what is best for your business and objectivity may be skewed towards personal considerations. It is clear however that both sides of the argument have positives and negatives, nothing is perfect. In an ideal world we would be able to keep all the positives and lose all the negatives, but this is never going to be completely possible. It should never however stop us from trying. If we never try we will never succeed.
The resultant increase in component sizes to meet this massive increase in generation capacity is also massive and it is becoming a potential limiting factor to the economics of turbine growth. The two companies from Finland; one a gearbox manufacturer (Moventas) and the other a Permanent Magnet Generator manufacturer (The Switch) clearly identified size and weight as becoming limiting factors in both conventional and direct drive turbines and decided that a solution needed to be found.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Size and weight were not the only considerations taken into account by Moventas and The Switch. Other factors were carefully considered with the goal of reducing the cost of generation.
One such
consideration was the ability to perform service to the unit on site in the nacelle. This consideration was particularly relevant with the increase in the number of turbines being situated offshore. The costs associated with lifting a gearbox or, as is in some cases a complete nacelle, from an off-shore turbine is extremely high and can only be achieved using specialist lifting
FOCUS – REDUCING THE COST OF WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION Some years ago two companies in Finland put their thinking caps on and tried to picture where the future of wind turbine technology would take us and their stated goal was to reduce the cost of wind energy production.
It was clear that ever larger wind turbines would be the order of the day as our industry has accelerated from kW class to multi MW class turbines in a very short period. Our industry is still an infant but turbine generation capacity has leapt from 100kW to 7MW and beyond in only 30 years.
vessels that are not always available and may have limited operating windows due to weather constraints in certain areas.
EASE OF SERVICE
Considering ease of service is of course important as it is a universal truth that all machines have the potential to fail, therefore it is important to make provision for this when you design. It is also a good idea to design something which will be as reliable as possible and this became an important driver for Moventas and The Switch and can be summed up in the statement below.
“Increasing reliability by reducing system complexity is key in reducing cost of wind energy production”
The result is – Fusion Drive from Moventas and The Switch.
Moventas
www.moventas.com
= Click to view video Click to view more info
The Switch
www.theswitch.com
REDUCTION OF COMPLEXITY So in order to increase reliability the complexity of the system must be reduced. On a drivetrain level the result is the integration of the independent main components into a hybrid system. On the gear level, the result is fewer components used. The design concept is based on load sharing techniques and the result is minimisation of total mass, with optimised and verified load sharing between the components transmitting the load and the resultant medium speed technology ensures the highest availability and annual energy yield.
COMPARISONS IN REDUCTION The gearbox and generator combination that has been developed in partnership between Moventas and The Switch is half the size and weight of direct drives. When compared to conventional drive trains the overall length is significantly reduced and also weight reduction is achieved. Lower weights and smaller physical size provides the opportunity for reduction in the total turbine manufacturing costs as towers and foundations are not supporting such heavy weights and sizes.
Total nacelle size and weight is dramatically reduced. Further savings are made in reduction of transport costs associated with larger heavier structures in the multi-MW turbine classes.
The stated goal is – “reduce the cost of wind energy production”
To achieve this
• An increase in reliability based on simplification of the system complexity is needed
• Size and weights need to be significantly reduced
• Total life time costs need to be reduced by making total service possible on site
• Use best technology to increase annual yield
www.windenergynetwork.co.uk
49
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108