Observations of wind farm wake recovery at an operating wind farm

Krishnamurthy, Raghavendra; Newsom, Rob K.; Kaul, Colleen M.; Letizia, Stefano; Pekour, Mikhail; Hamilton, Nicholas; Chand, Duli; Flynn, Donna; Bodini, Nicola; Moriarty, Patrick

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-361-2025

Articles | Volume 10, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-361-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-361-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 10, issue 2

Research article

|

04 Feb 2025

Research article |

| 04 Feb 2025

Observations of wind farm wake recovery at an operating wind farm

Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob K. Newsom, Colleen M. Kaul, Stefano Letizia, Mikhail Pekour, Nicholas Hamilton, Duli Chand, Donna Flynn, Nicola Bodini, and Patrick Moriarty

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Feb 2025)
Preprint (discussion started on 05 Apr 2024)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Review comment on wes-2024-29', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 May 2024

Review of “Observations of wind farm wake recovery at an operating wind farm” by Krishnamurthy, R., Newsom, R., Kaul, C., Letizia, S., Pekour, M., Hamilton, N., Chand, D., Flynn, D. M., Bodini, N., and Moriarty, P.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, 12 Sep 2024
  
  We thank the reviewers for their thorough and thoughtful assessment of the article. In the updated manuscript, we have addressed most of the reviewers concerns and provided justification or clarification for others. Our point-by-point responses are attached.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on wes-2024-29', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jul 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2024-29/wes-2024-29-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, 12 Sep 2024
  
  We thank the reviewers for their thorough and thoughtful assessment of the article. In the updated manuscript, we have addressed most of the reviewers concerns and provided justification or clarification for others. Our point-by-point responses to the comments is attached.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Raghavendra Krishnamurthy on behalf of the Authors (12 Sep 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Sep 2024) by Sandrine Aubrun

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Oct 2024)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Oct 2024) by Sandrine Aubrun

AR by Raghavendra Krishnamurthy on behalf of the Authors (31 Oct 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (06 Nov 2024) by Sandrine Aubrun

ED: Publish as is (08 Nov 2024) by Julia Gottschall (Chief editor)

AR by Raghavendra Krishnamurthy on behalf of the Authors (08 Nov 2024) Manuscript

Short summary

This study examines how atmospheric phenomena affect the recovery of wind farm wake – the disturbed air behind turbines. In regions like Oklahoma, where wind farms are often clustered, understanding wake recovery is crucial. We found that wind farms can alter phenomena like low-level jets, which are common in Oklahoma, by deflecting them above the wind farm. As a result, the impact of wakes can be observed up to 1–2 km above ground level.

Observations of wind farm wake recovery at an operating wind farm

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection