Articles | Volume 6, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
04 Jan 2021
Research article |
| 04 Jan 2021
| 04 Jan 2021
Observations and simulations of a wind farm modifying a thunderstorm outflow boundary
Jessica M. Tomaszewski
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0311, USA
Julie K. Lundquist
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0311, USA
National Wind Technology Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401-3305, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
William C. Radünz, Jens H. Kasper, Richard J. A. M. Stevens, and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-147, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-147, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Wind farms extract energy from the wind, creating slower, more turbulent flows that can affect other farms downstream. Using high-fidelity simulations for comparison, we find that models using coarser resolution to represent wind farms may underestimate how quickly the wind recovers. This appears to result from missing sharp wind changes and losing turbulence too quickly. Improving these aspects can help better predict wind energy production over long distances.
Nathan J. Agarwal and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-144, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-144, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Areas with mountains and valleys can either be beneficial or challenging for wind energy applications, depending on the wind patterns. Unfortunately, predicting wind patterns in these areas is also challenging and investing in measurement towers to improve wind forecasts can be expensive. We evaluate ways that wind farm developers and other stakeholders interested in improving atmospheric forecasts in these areas can do so in a more cost-effective way.
Miguel Sanchez-Gomez, Georgios Deskos, Mike Optis, Julie K. Lundquist, Michael Sinner, Geng Xia, and Walter Musial
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-152, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-152, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Mesoscale WRF simulations with the Fitch wind farm parameterization were compared to large-domain LES for three planned offshore wind farms under varied atmospheric conditions. Mesoscale runs captured key wake deficit patterns and stability effects in the wind farm wake evolution, but underestimated power losses from internal wakes, especially in aligned winds or stable conditions. Results highlight mesoscale strengths for large-scale wakes and limits for turbine-level losses.
Geng Xia, Mike Optis, Georgios Deskos, Michael Sinner, Daniel Mulas Hernando, Julie Kay Lundquist, Andrew Kumler, Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Paul Fleming, and Walter Musial
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-154, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-154, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines energy losses from cluster wakes in offshore wind farms along the U.S. East Coast. Simulations based on real lease projects show that large wind speed deficits do not always cause equally large energy losses. The energy loss method revealed wake areas up to 30 % larger than traditional estimates, underscoring the need to consider both wind speed deficit and energy loss in planning offshore wind development.
Anna Voss, Konrad B. Bärfuss, Beatriz Cañadillas, Maik Angermann, Mark Bitter, Matthias Cremer, Thomas Feuerle, Jonas Spoor, Julie K. Lundquist, Patrick Moriarty, and Astrid Lampert
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-113, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-113, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyses onshore wind farm wakes in a semi-complex terrain with data conducted with the research aircraft of TU Braunschweig during the AWAKEN project. Vertical profiles of temperature, humidity and wind give insights into the stratification of the atmospheric boundary layer, while horizontal profiles downwind of wind farms reveal an amplification of the reduction in wind speed in a semi-complex terrain in particular in a distance of 10 km.
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, Nicola Bodini, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1269–1301, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1269-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1269-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind farms along the US East Coast can have limited effects on local weather. To study these effects, we include wind farms near Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and we test different amounts of turbulence in our model. We analyze changes in wind, temperature, and turbulence. Simulated effects on surface temperature and turbulence change depending on how much turbulence is added to the model. The extent of the wind farm wake depends on how deep the atmospheric boundary layer is.
Robert S. Arthur, Alex Rybchuk, Timothy W. Juliano, Gabriel Rios, Sonia Wharton, Julie K. Lundquist, and Jerome D. Fast
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1187–1209, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1187-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1187-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates a new model configuration for wind energy forecasting in complex terrain. We compare model results to observations in the Altamont Pass (California, USA), where wind channeling through a mountain gap leads to increased energy production. We demonstrate that the new model configuration performs similarly to a more established approach, with some evidence of improved wind speed predictions, and provide guidance for future model testing.
Nathan J. Agarwal, Julie K. Lundquist, Timothy W. Juliano, and Alex Rybchuk
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-16, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-16, 2025
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Models of wind behavior inform offshore wind farm site investment decisions. Here we compare a newly-developed model to another, historically-used, model based on how these models represent winds and turbulence at two North Sea sites. The best model depends on the site. While the older model performs best at the site above a wind farm, the newer model performs best at the site that is at the same altitude as the wind farm. We support using the new model to represent winds at the turbine level.
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 117–142, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind farms will be built along the East Coast of the United States. Low-level jets (LLJs) – layers of fast winds at low altitudes – also occur here. LLJs provide wind resources and also influence moisture and pollution transport, so it is important to understand how they might change. We develop and validate an automated tool to detect LLJs and compare 1 year of simulations with and without wind farms. Here, we describe LLJ characteristics and how they change with wind farms.
David Rosencrans, Julie K. Lundquist, Mike Optis, and Nicola Bodini
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 59–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The US offshore wind industry is growing rapidly. Expansion into cold climates will subject turbines and personnel to hazardous icing. We analyze the 21-year icing risk for US east coast wind areas based on numerical weather prediction simulations and further assess impacts from wind farm wakes over one winter season. Sea spray icing at 10 m can occur up to 67 h per month. However, turbine–atmosphere interactions reduce icing hours within wind plant areas.
William Radünz, Bruno Carmo, Julie K. Lundquist, Stefano Letizia, Aliza Abraham, Adam S. Wise, Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Nicholas Hamilton, Raj K. Rai, and Pedro S. Peixoto
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-166, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-166, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how simple terrain can cause significant variations in wind speed, especially during specific atmospheric conditions like low-level jets. By combining simulations and observations from a real wind farm, we found that downstream turbines generate more power than upstream ones, despite wake effects only impacting the upstream turbines. We highlight the crucial role of the strong vertical wind speed gradient in low-level jets in driving this effect.
Rachel Robey and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1905–1922, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1905-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1905-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Measurements of wind turbine wakes with scanning lidar instruments contain complex errors. We model lidars in a simulated environment to understand how and why the measured wake may differ from the true wake and validate the results with observational data. The lidar smooths out the wake, making it seem more spread out and the slowdown of the winds less pronounced. Our findings provide insights into best practices for accurately measuring wakes with lidar and interpreting observational data.
Nicola Bodini, Mike Optis, Stephanie Redfern, David Rosencrans, Alex Rybchuk, Julie K. Lundquist, Vincent Pronk, Simon Castagneri, Avi Purkayastha, Caroline Draxl, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Ethan Young, Billy Roberts, Evan Rosenlieb, and Walter Musial
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 1965–2006, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This article presents the 2023 National Offshore Wind data set (NOW-23), an updated resource for offshore wind information in the US. It replaces the Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit, offering improved accuracy through advanced weather prediction models. The data underwent regional tuning and validation and can be accessed at no cost.
David Rosencrans, Julie K. Lundquist, Mike Optis, Alex Rybchuk, Nicola Bodini, and Michael Rossol
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 555–583, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-555-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-555-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The US offshore wind industry is developing rapidly. Using yearlong simulations of wind plants in the US mid-Atlantic, we assess the impacts of wind turbine wakes. While wakes are the strongest and longest during summertime stably stratified conditions, when New England grid demand peaks, they are predictable and thus manageable. Over a year, wakes reduce power output by over 35 %. Wakes in a wind plant contribute the most to that reduction, while wakes between wind plants play a secondary role.
Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Julie K. Lundquist, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, and Robert S. Arthur
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1049–1069, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1049-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1049-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The wind slows down as it approaches a wind plant; this phenomenon is called blockage. As a result, the turbines in the wind plant produce less power than initially anticipated. We investigate wind plant blockage for two atmospheric conditions. Blockage is larger for a wind plant compared to a stand-alone turbine. Also, blockage increases with atmospheric stability. Blockage is amplified by the vertical transport of horizontal momentum as the wind approaches the front-row turbines in the array.
Paul Veers, Katherine Dykes, Sukanta Basu, Alessandro Bianchini, Andrew Clifton, Peter Green, Hannele Holttinen, Lena Kitzing, Branko Kosovic, Julie K. Lundquist, Johan Meyers, Mark O'Malley, William J. Shaw, and Bethany Straw
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2491–2496, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2491-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2491-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wind energy will play a central role in the transition of our energy system to a carbon-free future. However, many underlying scientific issues remain to be resolved before wind can be deployed in the locations and applications needed for such large-scale ambitions. The Grand Challenges are the gaps in the science left behind during the rapid growth of wind energy. This article explains the breadth of the unfinished business and introduces 10 articles that detail the research needs.
Alex Rybchuk, Timothy W. Juliano, Julie K. Lundquist, David Rosencrans, Nicola Bodini, and Mike Optis
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2085–2098, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical weather prediction models are used to predict how wind turbines will interact with the atmosphere. Here, we characterize the uncertainty associated with the choice of turbulence parameterization on modeled wakes. We find that simulated wind speed deficits in turbine wakes can be significantly sensitive to the choice of turbulence parameterization. As such, predictions of future generated power are also sensitive to turbulence parameterization choice.
Rachel Robey and Julie K. Lundquist
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4585–4622, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4585-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4585-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Our work investigates the behavior of errors in remote-sensing wind lidar measurements due to turbulence. Using a virtual instrument, we measured winds in simulated atmospheric flows and decomposed the resulting error. Dominant error mechanisms, particularly vertical velocity variations and interactions with shear, were identified in ensemble data over three test cases. By analyzing the underlying mechanisms, the response of the error behavior to further varying flow conditions may be projected.
Vincent Pronk, Nicola Bodini, Mike Optis, Julie K. Lundquist, Patrick Moriarty, Caroline Draxl, Avi Purkayastha, and Ethan Young
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 487–504, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-487-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-487-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we have assessed to which extent mesoscale numerical weather prediction models are more accurate than state-of-the-art reanalysis products in characterizing the wind resource at heights of interest for wind energy. The conclusions of our work will be of primary importance to the wind industry for recommending the best data sources for wind resource modeling.
Adam S. Wise, James M. T. Neher, Robert S. Arthur, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, Julie K. Lundquist, and Fotini K. Chow
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 367–386, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-367-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-367-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbine wake behavior in hilly terrain depends on various atmospheric conditions. We modeled a wind turbine located on top of a ridge in Portugal during typical nighttime and daytime atmospheric conditions and validated these model results with observational data. During nighttime conditions, the wake deflected downwards following the terrain. During daytime conditions, the wake deflected upwards. These results can provide insight into wind turbine siting and operation in hilly regions.
Hannah Livingston, Nicola Bodini, and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-68, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-68, 2021
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we assess whether hub-height turbulence can easily be quantified from either other hub-height variables or ground-level measurements in complex terrain. We find a large variability across the three considered locations when trying to model hub-height turbulence intensity and turbulence kinetic energy. Our results highlight the nonlinear and complex nature of atmospheric turbulence, so that more powerful techniques should instead be recommended to model hub-height turbulence.
Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Julie K. Lundquist, Petra M. Klein, and Tyler M. Bell
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3539–3549, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3539-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3539-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In July 2018, the International Society for Atmospheric Research using Remotely-piloted Aircraft (ISARRA) hosted a flight week to demonstrate unmanned aircraft systems' capabilities in sampling the atmospheric boundary layer. Three Doppler lidars were deployed during this week-long experiment. We use data from these lidars to estimate turbulence dissipation rate. We observe large temporal variability and significant differences in dissipation for lidars with different sampling techniques.
Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Julie K. Lundquist, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, Robert S. Arthur, and Domingo Muñoz-Esparza
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-57, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-57, 2021
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Winds decelerate upstream of a wind plant as turbines obstruct and extract energy from the flow. This effect is known as wind plant blockage. We assess how atmospheric stability modifies the upstream wind plant blockage. We find stronger stability amplifies this effect. We also explore different approaches to quantifying blockage from field-like observations. We find different methodologies may induce errors of the same order of magnitude as the blockage-induced velocity deficits.
Alex Rybchuk, Mike Optis, Julie K. Lundquist, Michael Rossol, and Walt Musial
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-50, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-50, 2021
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
We characterize the wind resource off the coast of California by conducting simulations with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model between 2000 and 2019. We compare newly simulated winds to those from the WIND Toolkit. The newly simulated winds are substantially stronger, particularly in the late summer. We also conduct a refined analysis at three areas that are being considered for commercial development, finding that stronger winds translates to substantially more power here.
Tyler M. Bell, Petra M. Klein, Julie K. Lundquist, and Sean Waugh
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 1041–1051, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1041-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1041-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In July 2018, numerous weather sensing remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs) were flown in a flight week called Lower Atmospheric Process Studies at Elevation – a Remotely-piloted Aircraft Team Experiment (LAPSE-RATE). As part of LAPSE-RATE, ground-based remote and in situ systems were also deployed to supplement and enhance observations from the RPASs. These instruments include multiple Doppler lidars, thermodynamic profilers, and radiosondes. This paper describes data from these systems.
Caroline Draxl, Rochelle P. Worsnop, Geng Xia, Yelena Pichugina, Duli Chand, Julie K. Lundquist, Justin Sharp, Garrett Wedam, James M. Wilczak, and Larry K. Berg
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 45–60, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-45-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-45-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Mountain waves can create oscillations in low-level wind speeds and subsequently in the power output of wind plants. We document such oscillations by analyzing sodar and lidar observations, nacelle wind speeds, power observations, and Weather Research and Forecasting model simulations. This research describes how mountain waves form in the Columbia River basin and affect wind energy production and their impact on operational forecasting, wind plant layout, and integration of power into the grid.
Gijs de Boer, Adam Houston, Jamey Jacob, Phillip B. Chilson, Suzanne W. Smith, Brian Argrow, Dale Lawrence, Jack Elston, David Brus, Osku Kemppinen, Petra Klein, Julie K. Lundquist, Sean Waugh, Sean C. C. Bailey, Amy Frazier, Michael P. Sama, Christopher Crick, David Schmale III, James Pinto, Elizabeth A. Pillar-Little, Victoria Natalie, and Anders Jensen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3357–3366, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3357-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3357-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides an overview of the Lower Atmospheric Profiling Studies at Elevation – a Remotely-piloted Aircraft Team Experiment (LAPSE-RATE) field campaign, held from 14 to 20 July 2018. This field campaign spanned a 1-week deployment to Colorado's San Luis Valley, involving over 100 students, scientists, engineers, pilots, and outreach coordinators. This overview paper provides insight into the campaign for a special issue focused on the datasets collected during LAPSE-RATE.
Antonia Englberger, Julie K. Lundquist, and Andreas Dörnbrack
Wind Energ. Sci., 5, 1623–1644, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1623-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1623-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbines rotate clockwise. The rotational direction of the rotor interacts with the nighttime veering wind, resulting in a rotational-direction impact on the wake. In the case of counterclockwise-rotating blades the streamwise velocity in the wake is larger in the Northern Hemisphere whereas it is smaller in the Southern Hemisphere.
Antonia Englberger, Andreas Dörnbrack, and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci., 5, 1359–1374, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1359-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1359-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
At night, the wind direction often changes with height, and this veer affects structures near the surface like wind turbines. Wind turbines usually rotate clockwise, but this rotational direction interacts with veer to impact the flow field behind a wind turbine. If another turbine is located downwind, the direction of the upwind turbine's rotation will affect the downwind turbine.
Cited articles
Allaerts, D. and Meyers, J.: Gravity Waves and Wind-Farm Efficiency in
Neutral and Stable Conditions, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 166,
269–299, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-017-0307-5, 2018. a
Allaerts, D. and Meyers, J.: Sensitivity and feedback of wind-farm-induced
gravity waves, J. Fluid Mech., 862, 990–1028,
https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2018.969, 2019. a
Armstrong, A., Burton, R. R., Lee, S. E., Mobbs, S., Ostle, N., Smith, V.,
Waldron, S., and Whitaker, J.: Ground-level climate at a peatland wind farm
in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation, Environ. Res.
Lett., 11, 044024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044024, 2016. a
Arthur, R. S., Mirocha, J. D., Marjanovic, N., Hirth, B. D., Schroeder, J. L.,
Wharton, S., and Chow, F. K.: Multi-Scale Simulation of Wind Farm
Performance during a Frontal Passage, Atmosphere, 11, 245,
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030245, 2020. a, b
Baidya Roy, S.: Can large wind farms affect local meteorology?, J.
Geophys. Res., 109, D19101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004763, 2004. a
Baidya Roy, S. and Traiteur, J. J.: Impacts of wind farms on surface air
temperatures, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107,
17899–17904, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000493107, 2010. a
Barrie, D. B. and Kirk-Davidoff, D. B.: Weather response to a large wind turbine array, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 769–775, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-769-2010, 2010. a
Carbone, R. E., Conway, J. W., Crook, N. A., and Moncrieff, M. W.: The
Generation and Propagation of a Nocturnal Squall Line. Part I:
Observations and Implications for Mesoscale Predictability, Mon.
Weather Rev., 118, 26–49,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1990)118<0026:TGAPOA>2.0.CO;2,
1990. a
Cervarich, M. C., Roy, S. B., and Zhou, L.: Spatiotemporal Structure of
Wind Farm-atmospheric Boundary Layer Interactions, Energy Procedia,
40, 530–536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.08.061, 2013. a
Christiansen, M. B. and Hasager, C. B.: Wake effects of large offshore wind
farms identified from satellite SAR, Remote Sens. Environ., 98,
251–268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.07.009, 2005. a
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B.,
Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park,
B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart,
F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011 (data available at: https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds627.0/, last access: 20 December 2020). a, b
Droegemeier, K. K. and Wilhelmson, R. B.: Numerical Simulation of
Thunderstorm Outflow Dynamics. Part I: Outflow Sensitivity
Experiments and Turbulence Dynamics, J. Atmos.
Sci., 44, 1180–1210,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<1180:NSOTOD>2.0.CO;2,
1987. a, b
Duda, J. D. and Gallus, W. A.: The Impact of Large-Scale Forcing on
Skill of Simulated Convective Initiation and Upscale Evolution
with Convection-Allowing Grid Spacings in the WRF, Weather
Forecast., 28, 994–1018, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-13-00005.1, 2013. a
Dudhia, J.: Numerical Study of Convection Observed during the Winter Monsoon
Experiment Using a Mesoscale Two-Dimensional Model, J.
Atmos. Sci., 46, 3077–3107,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1989)046<3077:NSOCOD>2.0.CO;2, 1989. a
ECMWF: ERA-Interim Project, Research Data Archive at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory,
Boulder, CO, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6CR5RD9, 2009. a
Ek, M. B., Mitchell, K. E., Lin, Y., Rogers, E., Grunmann, P., Koren, V.,
Gayno, G., and Tarpley, J. D.: Implementation of Noah land surface model
advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction
operational mesoscale Eta model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 2002JD003296, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003296, 2003. a
Fitch, A. C.: Climate Impacts of Large-Scale Wind Farms as Parameterized in a
Global Climate Model, J. Climate, 28, 6160–6180,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00245.1, 2015. a
Fitch, A. C.: Notes on using the mesoscale wind farm parameterization of
Fitch et al. (2012) in WRF, Wind Energ., 19, 1757–1758,
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1945, 2016. a, b, c
Fitch, A. C., Lundquist, J. K., and Olson, J. B.: Mesoscale Influences of
Wind Farms throughout a Diurnal Cycle, Mon. Weather Rev., 141,
2173–2198, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00185.1, 2013. a, b
Frandsen, S. T., Jørgensen, H. E., Barthelmie, R., Rathmann, O., Badger, J.,
Hansen, K., Ott, S., Rethore, P.-E., Larsen, S. E., and Jensen, L. E.: The
making of a second-generation wind farm efficiency model complex, Wind
Energ., 12, 445–458, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.351, 2009. a
Goff, R. C.: Vertical Structure of Thunderstorm Outflows, Monthly Weather
Review, 104, 1429–1440,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1976)104<1429:VSOTO>2.0.CO;2,
1976. a
Hoen, B., Diffendorfer, J., Rand, J., Kramer, L., Garrity, C., and Hunt, H.:
United States Wind Turbine Database, available at:
https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb (last access: 20 December 2020), 2020. a
Hong, S. and Lim, J. J.: The WRF Single-Moment 6-Class Microphysics Scheme
(WSM6), Asia-pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 42, 129–151, 2006. a
Hunter, J. D.: Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Comput. Sci.
Eng., 9, 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55, 2007. a
IEA: World Energy Outlook 2018, available at:
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2018 (last access: 20 December 2020), 2018. a
Isom, B. M., Palmer, R. D., Secrest, G. S., Rhoton, R. D., Saxion, D., Allmon,
T. L., Reed, J., Crum, T., and Vogt, R.: Detailed Observations of Wind
Turbine Clutter with Scanning Weather Radars, J.
Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26, 894–910,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1136.1, 2009. a
Jimenez, P. A., Dudhia, J., González-Rouco, J. F., Navarro, J., Montávez,
J. P., and García-Bustamante, E.: A Revised Scheme for the WRF
Surface Layer Formulation, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, 898–918,
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00056.1, 2012. a
Kain, J. S.: The Kain–Fritsch Convective Parameterization: An Update, J. Appl. Meteorol., 43, 170–181,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Keith, D. W., DeCarolis, J. F., Denkenberger, D. C., Lenschow, D. H., Malyshev,
S. L., Pacala, S., and Rasch, P. J.: The influence of large-scale wind power
on global climate, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101,
16115–16120, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406930101, 2004. a
Klazura, G. E. and Imy, D. A.: A Description of the Initial Set of
Analysis Products Available from the NEXRAD WSR-88D System,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 74, 1293–1312,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1993)074<1293:ADOTIS>2.0.CO;2,
1993. a
Klingle, D. L., Smith, D. R., and Wolfson, M. M.: Gust Front
Characteristics as Detected by Doppler Radar, Mon. Weather Rev.,
115, 905–918, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1987)115<0905:GFCADB>2.0.CO;2,
1987. a
Lee, J. C. Y. and Lundquist, J. K.: Evaluation of the wind farm parameterization in the Weather Research and Forecasting model (version 3.8.1) with meteorological and turbine power data, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4229–4244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4229-2017, 2017a. a, b
Lee, J. C. Y. and Lundquist, J. K.: Observing and Simulating Wind-Turbine
Wakes During the Evening Transition, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 164,
449–474, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-017-0257-y, 2017b. a
Lissaman, P. B. S.: Energy Effectiveness of Arbitrary Arrays of Wind
Turbines, J. Energy, 3, 323–328, https://doi.org/10.2514/3.62441, 1979. a
Lundquist, J. K., DuVivier, K. K., Kaffine, D., and Tomaszewski, J. M.: Costs
and consequences of wind turbine wake effects arising from uncoordinated wind
energy development, Nature Energy, 4, 26–34, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0281-2, 2018. a, b
Mlawer, E. J., Taubman, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J., and Clough, S. A.:
Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated
correlated-k model for the longwave, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 16663–16682, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00237, 1997. a
Mueller, C. K. and Carbone, R. E.: Dynamics of a Thunderstorm Outflow,
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 44, 1879–1898,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<1879:DOATO>2.0.CO;2,
1987. a
Nakanishi, M. and Niino, H.: An Improved Mellor–Yamada Level-3
Model: Its Numerical Stability and Application to a Regional
Prediction of Advection Fog, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 119, 397–407,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-9030-8, 2006. a
NOAA National Weather Service, R. O. C.: NOAA Next Generation Radar
(NEXRAD) Level II Base Data, https://doi.org/10.7289/V5W9574V,
type: dataset, 1991. a
Nugraha, A. A. A. and Trilaksono, N. J.: Simulation of wind gust –
Producing thunderstorm outflow over Mahakam block using WRF, AIP
Conference Proceedings, 1987, 020051, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5047336, 2018. a
Platis, A., Siedersleben, S. K., Bange, J., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K.,
Hankers, R., Cañadillas, B., Foreman, R., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Djath,
B., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: First in situ evidence of wakes in the far
field behind offshore wind farms, Scientific Reports, 8, 2163,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20389-y, 2018. a, b
Powers, J. G., Klemp, J. B., Skamarock, W. C., Davis, C. A., Dudhia, J., Gill,
D. O., Coen, J. L., Gochis, D. J., Ahmadov, R., Peckham, S. E., Grell, G. A.,
Michalakes, J., Trahan, S., Benjamin, S. G., Alexander, C. R., Dimego, G. J.,
Wang, W., Schwartz, C. S., Romine, G. S., Liu, Z., Snyder, C., Chen, F.,
Barlage, M. J., Yu, W., and Duda, M. G.: The Weather Research and
Forecasting Model: Overview, System Efforts, and Future
Directions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98,
1717–1737, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00308.1, 2017. a
Quan, W., Xu, X., and Wang, Y.: Observation of a straight-line wind case caused
by a gust front and its associated fine-scale structures, J.
Meteorol. Res., 28, 1137–1154, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-014-3080-0,
2014. a
Rajewski, D. A., Takle, E. S., Lundquist, J. K., Oncley, S., Prueger, J. H.,
Horst, T. W., Rhodes, M. E., Pfeiffer, R., Hatfield, J. L., Spoth, K. K., and
Doorenbos, R. K.: Crop Wind Energy Experiment (CWEX): Observations
of Surface-Layer, Boundary Layer, and Mesoscale Interactions with
a Wind Farm, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94,
655–672, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00240.1, 2013. a
Rajewski, D. A., Takle, E. S., Lundquist, J. K., Prueger, J. H., Pfeiffer,
R. L., Hatfield, J. L., Spoth, K. K., and Doorenbos, R. K.: Changes in fluxes
of heat, H2O, and CO2 caused by a large wind farm, Agr.
Forest Meteorol., 194, 175–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.03.023,
2014. a
Rajewski, D. A., Takle, E. S., Prueger, J. H., and Doorenbos, R. K.: Toward
understanding the physical link between turbines and microclimate impacts
from in situ measurements in a large wind farm: Microclimate With
Turbines ON Versus OFF, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 13392–13414,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025297, 2016. a
Rajewski, D. A., Takle, E. S., VanLoocke, A., and Purdy, S. L.: Observations
Show That Wind Farms Substantially Modify the Atmospheric
Boundary Layer Thermal Stratification Transition in the Early
Evening, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086010,
2020. a
Redfern, S., Olson, J. B., Lundquist, J. K., and Clack, C. T. M.: Incorporation
of the Rotor-Equivalent Wind Speed into the Weather Research and
Forecasting Model’s Wind Farm Parameterization, Mon. Weather
Rev., 147, 1029–1046, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0194.1, 2019. a
Schmitz, S.: XTurb-PSU: A Wind Turbine Design and Analysis
Tool, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22492.18567,
2012. a, b
Schroeder, J. L., Burgett, W. S., Haynie, K. B., Sonmez, I., Skwira, G. D.,
Doggett, A. L., and Lipe, J. W.: The West Texas Mesonet: A
Technical Overview, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 22,
211–222, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-1690.1, 2005. a
Siedersleben, S. K., Lundquist, J. K., Platis, A., Bange, J., Bärfuss, K.,
Lampert, A., Cañadillas, B., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.:
Micrometeorological impacts of offshore wind farms as seen in observations
and simulations, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 124012,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaea0b, 2018a. a, b
Siedersleben, S. K., Platis, A., Lundquist, J. K., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K.,
Cañadillas, B., Djath, B., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Bange, J., Neumann, T.,
and Emeis, S.: Evaluation of a Wind Farm Parametrization for
Mesoscale Atmospheric Flow Models with Aircraft Measurements,
Meteorol. Z., 27, 401–415, https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2018/0900,
2018b. a, b
Siedersleben, S. K., Platis, A., Lundquist, J. K., Djath, B., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K., Cañadillas, B., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Bange, J., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: Turbulent kinetic energy over large offshore wind farms observed and simulated by the mesoscale model WRF (3.8.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 249–268, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-249-2020, 2020. a
Skamarock, W. C. and Klemp, J. B.: A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric
model for weather research and forecasting applications, J.
Comput. Phys., 227, 3465–3485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.037,
2008. a
Smith, C. M., Barthelmie, R. J., and Pryor, S. C.: In situ
observations of the influence of a large onshore wind farm on near-surface
temperature, turbulence intensity and wind speed profiles, Environ.
Res. Lett., 8, 034006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034006, 2013. a
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D. M., Duda, M. G., Huang, X.-Y., Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3, NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+STR, 113 pp.,
https://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH, 2008 (data available at: https://doi.org/10.5065/D6MK6B4K and http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/download/get_source.html, last access: December 2020).
a, b
Smith, R. B.: Gravity wave effects on wind farm efficiency, Wind Energ., 13,
449–458, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.366, 2009. a
Tomaszewski, J. M.: jessica-tomaszewski/WRF-WFP-outflow v1.1 (Version 1.1), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3974719, 2020. a
Tomaszewski, J. M. and Lundquist, J. K.: Simulated wind farm wake sensitivity to configuration choices in the Weather Research and Forecasting model version 3.8.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2645–2662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2645-2020, 2020. a, b
Tomaszewski, J. M., Lundquist, J. K., Churchfield, M. J., and Moriarty, P. J.: Do wind turbines pose roll hazards to light aircraft?, Wind Energ. Sci., 3, 833–843, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-833-2018, 2018. a
Toms, B. A., Tomaszewski, J. M., Turner, D. D., and Koch, S. E.: Analysis of a
Lower-Tropospheric Gravity Wave Train Using Direct and Remote
Sensing Measurement Systems, Mon. Weather Rev., 145, 2791–2812,
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0216.1, 2017. a
Wakimoto, R. M.: The Life Cycle of Thunderstorm Gust Fronts as
Viewed with Doppler Radar and Rawinsonde Data, Mon. Weather
Rev., 110, 1060–1082,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1982)110<1060:TLCOTG>2.0.CO;2,
1982. a, b
Xia, G., Zhou, L., Freedman, J. M., Roy, S. B., Harris, R. A., and Cervarich,
M. C.: A case study of effects of atmospheric boundary layer turbulence, wind
speed, and stability on wind farm induced temperature changes using
observations from a field campaign, Clim. Dynam., 46, 2179–2196,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2696-9, 2016. a
Xia, G., Cervarich, M. C., Roy, S. B., Zhou, L., Minder, J. R., Jimenez, P. A.,
and Freedman, J. M.: Simulating Impacts of Real-World Wind Farms on
Land Surface Temperature Using the WRF Model: Validation with
Observations, Mon. Weather Rev., 145, 4813–4836,
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0401.1, 2017. a
Xia, G., Zhou, L., Minder, J. R., Fovell, R. G., and Jimenez, P. A.: Simulating
impacts of real-world wind farms on land surface temperature using the WRF
model: physical mechanisms, Clim. Dynam., 53, 1723–1739,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04725-0, 2019. a
Zhou, L., Tian, Y., Baidya Roy, S., Thorncroft, C., Bosart, L. F., and Hu, Y.:
Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature, Nature Clim. Change, 2,
539–543, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1505, 2012. a
Zrnic, D. S. and Lee, J. T.: Investigation of the Detectability and
Lifetime of Gust Fronts and Other Weather Hazards to Aircraft.,
Tech. rep., NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NORMAN OK
NATIONAL SEVERE STORMS LAB, available at:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a141552.pdf (last access: 20 December 2020), 1983. a
Short summary
We use a mesoscale numerical weather prediction model to conduct a case study of a thunderstorm outflow passing over and interacting with a wind farm. These simulations and observations from a nearby radar and surface station confirm that interactions with the wind farm cause the outflow to reduce its speed by over 20 km h−1, with brief but significant impacts on the local meteorology, including temperature, moisture, and winds. Precipitation accumulation across the region was unaffected.
We use a mesoscale numerical weather prediction model to conduct a case study of a thunderstorm...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint