Wind farm design increasingly demands careful balancing of energy yield, wake effects, and economic costs to meet renewable energy targets affordably. This study develops a simulation-based optimization framework tailored to the Ngong Hills wind farm in Kenya. Using a Python-based genetic algorithm paired with the Jensen wake model, we evaluate four layout scenarios: homogeneous layouts of Vestas V52 (850 kW) and NREL 5 MW turbines, as well as mixed configurations combining these or mid-sized Vestas V66 (1.75 MW) and V90 (3.0 MW) turbines, across 800,000 m² site with realistic wind speed and direction distributions. The genetic algorithm optimized turbine placements while enforcing minimum rotor-diameter-based spacing and varying hub heights in the same wind farm to mitigate wake interactions. Results showed that homogeneous V52 and NREL layouts achieved comparable LCOE of $52/MWh, but required trade-offs between the number of turbines and spacing. A hybrid layout mixing V52 and NREL turbines achieved the lowest LCOE of $37/MWh and reduced wake losses by 18.2%, highlighting the value of integrating heterogeneous turbines with staggered hub heights. In contrast, the V66+V90 layout, despite its higher AEP potential, suffered from increased wake interactions and capital costs, leading to an LCOE of $58/MWh. These findings show that a comprehensive economic evaluation, beyond assessing power output alone, proved essential to identifying truly optimal layouts. The mixed V52 + NREL configuration exemplifies how combining high-capacity turbines with densely packed smaller units can mitigate wake effects and minimize LCOE, outperforming homogeneous arrangements. These insights support a strategic layout and turbine design philosophy that considers site-specific wind characteristics, varied turbine types, and cost metrics to create more cost-effective and sustainable wind farms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J.K et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: