Weather Guard Lightning Tech
Improved Monitoring for Better Lightning protection of Wind Turbines
A proposed change to the IEC 61400-24 Lightning Protection specification has generated a robust discussion on how collecting lightning data can lead to better lightning protection for wind turbines. As we see it, the proposed amendment would have operators collect more of the same lightning specific research data we already have, increasing the LCOE without offering any new or actionable data for the wind industry.
Please contact the IEC with your questions and concerns. The period for public comment runs through November 2, 2023, but you can contact the IEC at any time to request information about the standards. Lightning expert Allen Hall and Weather Guard Lightning Tech Chief Commercial Officer, Joel Saxum, reviewed the proposed changes in depth in a recent episode of the Uptime Wind Energy podcast. Listen to the discussion here.
What We Already Know about Lightning Damage on Wind Turbines
Over the past 100 years or so, this industry has done an excellent job of measuring the current parameters on lightning activity.
Polytech has performed what is probably the most recent, major research collection, instrumenting about 1,100 turbines around the world, measuring current parameters and then analyzing the frequency and probability of lightning strikes that are outside of the LPL 1 requirement. (LPL 1 is essentially the highest-level IEC requirement for wind turbine blades, and the generally accepted standard for which to test.)
What Polytech found was that the current parameters fall within and are aligned with the existing IEC spec; that is, the data from the previous hundred years, in terms of lightning strike current flow, matches what has most recently been seen on turbines.
On the one hand, that’s great, because it means all of the existing lightning data collected, back to the 1920s and 1930s, from the Empire State Building to towers in Switzerland, Italy, and all over the world, matches the standard that we’ve been testing for.
Requiring monitoring of more of the same data won’t improve lightning protection systems.
Actionable Data to Improve Lightning Protection
The new data that’s needed –or new parameters, really – would explain what happens in the attachment phase, the high voltage phase of the lightning strike. Additionally, research we’ve been working on for a number of years related to aerodynamics and how lightning moves on and attaches to the blade will move the industry forward and improve lightning protection systems. Learn more
The good news is that today,there are some very cost-effective waysto get actionable data to better manage and maintain equipment. Expensive monitoring systems are not necessary.
Owners don’t need to know about all the lightning metadata from activity around their farms. They just need to know which turbine has been struck, and whether it was damaged.
Getting the Data You Need to Protect Your Assets
In numerous discussions with owners, it’s clear that most of them don’t know how many lightning strikes they’re taking. When you look at the real lightning data on turbines, you see that some turbines are taking many more lightning strikes than thought.
Would you believe up to 36 strikes on one turbine in one year?
Lightning location services can provide owners with proximate and statistical information. If you know when the lightning strike occurred, a reliable lightning location service can tell you the amplitude of the lightning strike, the peak amplitude, the specific energy, and the rate of rise. However, they cannot tell you 100% if a specific turbine was struck but, they will give you a good idea!
Now, all of those things would be recorded on the monitoring systems being proposed for turbines under the potential amendment to IEC 61400-24. But there’s no need to monitor blades at a scientific level.
We’ve been asked a lot of questions about monitoring systems, and what we always recommend is this: if you’re going to have a monitoring system, make sure that it provides easy to digest and actionable data. We don’t want to see data science projects for every wind turbine manager, that’s when action gets lost.
Lightning Location Services: What you Need to Know
Unfortunately, some lightning location services that have a lot of subscribers are not accurate enough on strike location to be useful. You can’t waste a technician’s time; you need to be able to say, “look at that one.”
There are also two general “rules of thumb” in the industry and inherent in the IEC spec that don’t hold up.
One is assuming that lightning turbine strikes are collected in an area of roughly three times the tip height. When we look at actual, real-world data, that 3X number is way, way too small. It’s probably closer to 5- or 10 times, varying based on the lightning location system used and the wind farm location in the world.
You could think that a lightning strike happened 600 meters from your turbine, and you’d ignore it – missing potential damage.
Also, because lightning location services have trouble locating some types of strikes accurately, particularly upward lightning strikes, you can get a false sense of security from some lightning location services.
What we know from the data we already have is that a lot of lightning strikes that happen near turbines don’t hit the turbine, and a lot of lightning strikes that appear to be far away actually do hit.
In other words, there are several ways you could look at the lightning strike map and make a mistake.
The only way to know for 100% that your turbine has been struck is to put a monitor on the turbine. How you monitor and what you monitor for is key. Find out more
Using a lightning location service is by far the cheapest option for monitoring, but you have to weigh the cost of the service and the efficacy of your data. Still, even with the lowest-cost option, you’re being proactive and getting actionable data. It is much better to actively monitor your assets through a lightning location service than not at all.
Another option is the Ping Lightning + Acoustic Monitoring System. It is the least expensive on-turbine monitor, and the one system that currently offers a built-in lightning sensor that indicates when a tower has been struck, and an acoustic sensor that listens for any blade damage. The combination clearly aligns the lightning strike to blade damage. An alert tells a technician which turbine to look at and what to look for, so you’re not wasting a technician’s time.
Or you can be a big spender and start instrumenting, in the neighborhood of $3,000- to $10, 000 range per turbine – and you’ll get massive amounts of fantastic data to sort through.
But you don’t need it. You just need to know which turbine has been struck.
You don’t need to know which blade has been struck. For onshore turbines, you don’t need an instrument to figure out which blade has been struck. A pair of binoculars is going to tell you that. It leaves a pathway; you can see it if there is damage.
Questions about stopping the damage you see? Contact me
Here are my recommendations for lightning monitoring systems:
At a bare minimum, subscribe to a lightning location service and monitor for strikes. This will get you going in a direction to be proactive about possible damage you may have taken. If the collection area is actually larger than the IEC standard says, then inspect the 3 closest turbines to a strike after a storm. This motivated inspection is better than no inspection, or worse, trying to inspect an entire wind farm after a convective storm.
To get first line actionable information on lightning strikes, you need a lightning detector at a minimum, and it is nice to have a damage monitor. There are good ones that are inexpensive and simple to install and operate. That’s your second-lowest cost option and my favorite.
Thirdly, instrument your turbines like a University project. It will cost a lot but, if you have some clever data science gurus on your team – they may discover some trends. However, at the end of the day, operations and maintenance personnel simply need to know what turbines to inspect.
To prevent lightning damage, you need to upgrade your LPS system. The fact that this IEC standard update has been proposed indicates that the IEC standard isn’t doing an adequate job protecting blades from lightning damage. Who, how, and what = StrikeTape from Weather Guard Lightning Tech – reach out for more information on how we have protected airplanes, fixed structures, and 13,000 + blades globally..
Should You Wait for the Insurance Industry to Weigh In?
I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have been in the field with numerous owners who are looking at property damage and business interruption cost claims.
At some point, probably soon, insurance companies that are spending way too much time writing and reviewing claims for lightning damage that shouldn’t exist – because we adhere to the current IEC standard – will step in to make some corrections.
In case you’re lucky enough to have not experienced a lightning damage claim, let me explain how things can get out of control.
Property damage and business interruption costs are two separate things that are typically covered under the same policy. Initially, you may say, “we have a lightning strike and we’ve got to stop the turbine. Since it’s only going to cost us $100, 000 to fix, we won’t hit our deductible.”
However, once that turbine has been stopped for 30 days, you have a Business Interruption (BI) claim. Business interruption claims can quickly amount to three- to five times the cost of the property damage. So, upgrading your LPS system to avoid that damage makes sense.
More sense than monitoring for data we don’t need.
Questions about lightning protection or about the proposed amendment Annex L for the IEC 61400-24 Lightning Protection? Contact me.
Joel Saxum, Weather Guard Lightning Tech’s Chief Commercial Officer, reviewed the proposed IEC standards for Lightning Protection with lightning expert Allen Hall on October 19,2023. In the discussion, they offered several cost-effective alternatives for wind owners and operators who want to improve lightning protection and reduce the LCOE in a discussion.
Improved Monitoring for Better Lightning protection of Wind Turbines
Renewable Energy
California a “Failed State?”
Disgusting. It’s one thing that “news” in the United States has largely been replaced by incendiary opinions. But it’s even worse that so many of these opinions are so grossly ill-informed.
In its quest to move to the middle of the political spectrum, CNN has integrated a few hard-right commentator, like Jennings. Fine; I get that. But do they have to be morons?
In particular, can’t CNN do better than to refer to California as a “failed state?” If California were a nation it would be the fourth largest economy on the planet, having recently overtaken Japan.
Renewable Energy
North Carolina needs more certainty before committing to an expensive new gas plant
Despite massive uncertainty across the economy, Duke Energy is plowing ahead with its plan to build new fossil gas-fired power plants to serve data center, manufacturing, and other large customer load that may not even show up. Duke has asked the NC Utilities Commission for permission to build a combined-cycle (CC) gas plant in Person County, North Carolina, at the site of Duke’s Roxboro coal plant.
SACE has argued against the need for this gas power plant in the Certificate of Public Need and Necessity (CPCN) docket, submitting testimony to the Commission on Monday, June 9, 2025. Here’s a summary of that testimony (prepared by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.), which explains what this all means for Duke’s billpayers, and how Duke can make changes within its control to protect customers and reduce pollution. These recommendations include:
- Not approving this new gas power plant because the risks that it will increase bills are too high. Instead, Duke should improve the processes that are holding back lower-cost renewables and storage, then use renewables and storage to meet new load.
- Instead of approving this specific gas plant, the Commission should order Duke to use an all-source procurement process to determine a portfolio of flexible assets that can meet the utility’s needs based on real-world costs.
- In the event the Commission approves this gas plant, it should protect customers from high bills due to volatile gas prices by instituting a fuel cost sharing mechanism for the fuel costs spent to run this plant.
Duke Doesn’t Need this Risky Gas Power Plant
Duke’s claim that it needs this fossil gas power plant is based on outdated analysis. In this CPCN docket, Duke relies on its 2023 Carbon Plan Integrated Resource Plan (CPIRP) modeling and the CPIRP supplemental update and analysis filed in January 2024. The world has changed dramatically since then, and it is important that the Commission review the latest information before approving expenditures that will impact customer bills for decades.
Duke’s load forecast – once based on steady, predictable growth – is now subject to significant uncertainty as 1) data center developers look around the country for the best deal and the fastest interconnection to the grid and 2) manufacturers announce projects and then pull back as political uncertainty changes the economics of those projects. Under Duke’s current rate structure, prospective companies and site developers do not need to commit much money to become part of Duke’s load forecast. They have very little “skin in the game,” and Duke currently does not have policies in place to change this. If the Commission allows Duke to build an expensive fossil gas plant for load that doesn’t materialize, Duke’s remaining customers will be on the hook to pay for it.
Duke’s own load forecast updates since 2023 show that there are wild swings in its predictions. In the Spring of 2023, Duke anticipated 8 new large load projects during its 10-year planning forecast period, requiring an average of 169 MW each. Then for Fall 2023 (the supplemental update filed in January 2024), Duke anticipated 35 projects requiring an average of 111 MW each. In Summer 2024, Duke changed its forecast again, projecting 39 projects requiring an average of only 103 MW. And in May 2025, Duke filed an update showing a reduction in the number of projects back down to 35 but a dramatic increase in average need – back up to 169 MW. Duke’s forecasts will continue to show swings up and down – both in the number of projects and megawatts – until Duke has policies in place that require more commitment from the companies that knock on its door requesting service. Duke also has not published information regarding the location of these loads – the latest forecast applies to all of Duke Energy in both North and South Carolina.
It is also important to know that that this gas plant isn’t needed to meet growing load from existing customers or to replace retiring coal plants (according to Duke’s own testimony). This gas plant is being justified by new manufacturing and data centers claiming they will be operating somewhere in Duke Energy Progress or Duke Energy Carolinas territory in North or South Carolina.
Even if the load shows up, this plant won’t be needed for long
Even Duke admits that it doesn’t “need” this fossil gas power plant for very long. These kinds of power plants, combined-cycle plants, are typically used about 80% of the time, i.e. they are “baseload” power plants. But even absent federal carbon regulations, Duke expects this power plant’s usage to decline significantly throughout its 35-year lifetime (from 80% in 2030 decreasing to 46% by 2040 and only 13% by 2050 onwards). As cheaper renewables and storage with zero fuel costs are brought online, they will displace this plant. Duke is proposing to build a giant power plant that will very quickly run less and less – but Duke’s customers will continue to pay for it until 2065—15 years past a state law requiring Duke’s generation fleet to be carbon neutral. This represents a significant change in how power plants are built and run, and this is not in the best interest of Duke’s billpayers. To add insult to injury, Duke hasn’t even procured all of the equipment needed to build this plant, so the costs could skyrocket even more than they already have since last year’s carbon plan proceeding.
Renewables are flexible, would protect customers, and would reduce pollution
Duke’s model only chose a gas plant to meet this capacity need because of limits Duke imposed on the model. Duke claims it cannot interconnect renewables and storage fast enough to meet this capacity need, but the reasons it cannot interconnect those resources faster are all within Duke’s control. As Synapse recommends, Duke needs to update its processes that are holding back renewables and storage from serving customers with low-cost and low-risk resources. These processes include interconnection and transmission planning.
SACE has been advocating for improvements to these processes for years, and Duke has made changes to both its interconnection process and transmission planning. Duke was one of the first utilities in the Southeast to implement cluster studies in its interconnection process, and it is in the midst of the first scenario-based transmission planning exercise in the region. But is there evidence that these updates have helped if Duke continues to limit solar and storage in its future resource modeling? Given the much quicker interconnection process recently demonstrated in Texas, this raises the question of how hard Duke is really trying to streamline renewables interconnection.
Modular, flexible resources such as wind, solar, and energy storage can be adjusted in quantity based on market conditions. As our testimony from Synapse states, “This modularity, combined with the fact that solar and wind have zero exposure to fuel price volatility once they are constructed, makes these resources particularly valuable in the face of trade tariff uncertainty.”
The bottom line is that the Commission needs a lot more certainty about load growth and costs before committing Duke’s billpayers to any type of large fossil gas power plant. We simply do not have that now.
The post North Carolina needs more certainty before committing to an expensive new gas plant appeared first on SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
North Carolina needs more certainty before committing to an expensive new gas plant
Renewable Energy
Ultimate Guide To Understanding Every Type Of Solar Panel
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year ago
US SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban