Wind power generation and appropriate feed-in-tariff under limited wind resource in central Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to assess the wind energy resource in the central region of Thailand for wind power generation, along with analyzing the economic feasibility and appropriate feed-in-tariff (FIT) of a proposed 15 MW wind power plant. A microscale wind resource map was created using measured wind data, a computational fluid dynamics wind flow modeling and high-resolution topography databases. Five utility-scale wind turbine generators (WTG), with hub heights ranging from 80 to 120 m above ground level (agl), were used to estimate the annual energy production (AEP). Considering the available wind resource, the most appropriate WTG was identified, and a wind power plant layout was achieved to maximize the AEP as well as minimizing the wake losses. The maximum net AEP, capacity factor (CF), %AEP improvement, %wake loss reduction, and CO2eq emission avoidance were also analyzed. Several financial indices and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) were analyzed on the basis of a cost–benefit analysis. The economic sensitivity of the costs was used to determine the most appropriate FIT for the project. Results reveal that the mean annual wind speed at 120 m agl in the central region of Thailand reaches 5.8 m/s. The net AEP, CF, %AEP improvement, %wake loss, and CO2eq emission avoidance for a 15 MW wind power plant are estimated at 41 GWh/year, 30%, 6%, 10% and 231 ktonnes CO2eq/year, respectively. The LCOE for a base case scenario is estimated at 0.093 US$/kWh, with a FIT of 0.195 US$/kWh. Finally, the results of this work can be used as guidelines for wind power project development in the central region of Thailand and in other regions of the world where the wind resource is low to moderate under current existing WTG technology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".