Technical and Economic Assessment of a 10 MW Wind Farm at Pakphanang District in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the technical and economic assessment of a 10 MW wind farm at Pakphanang district in Nakhon Si Thammarat province, southern Thailand. The microscale wind resource map within 10 km is developed based on 3 years recorded wind data at 120 m above ground level (agl) (2012-2014) along with computational fluid dynamic (CFD) wind flow modeling with resolution of 90 m. The 5 x 2.0 MW and 4 x 2.5 MW modeled wind farms are positioned along the shoreline with a position criteria of 5 times the rotor diameter between the turbines. The net annual energy production (AEP) and capacity factor (CF) with wake losses are analyzed. The economic analysis is done based on the current project cost and financial incentive (Adder). Results show that the annual mean speed at 120 m agl is 5.2 m/s. The net AEP and CF are 36.60 GWh/year and 41.78%, respectively with wake loss of 0.40%. Under project cost of 75 million THB/MW and 70% debt ratio and Thailand Board of Investment (BOI) tax exemption promotion, the benefit cost ratio is 1.04, the net present value is 65.96 million THB, the financial internal rate of return is 17.70% and the payback period is 4 years. Finally, a 10 MW wind power project could avoid greenhouse gas emission of 19,764 tons CO 2 eq per year.Keywords: Wind Energy, Wind Farm, Capacity Factor, Wind Flow Modeling, Project Analysis
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".