Articles | Volume 7, issue 3
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of obstacle modelling approaches for resource assessment and small wind turbine siting: case study in the northern Netherlands
- Final revised paper (published on 02 Jun 2022)
- Preprint (discussion started on 14 Feb 2022)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2021-164', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Mar 2022
- RC2: 'Comment on wes-2021-164', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Mar 2022
- RC3: 'Comment on wes-2021-164', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Mar 2022
- EC1: 'Comment on wes-2021-164', Alessandro Bianchini, 29 Mar 2022
- AC1: 'Comment on wes-2021-164', Caleb Phillips, 05 Apr 2022
- AC2: 'Comment on wes-2021-164', Caleb Phillips, 12 Apr 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Caleb Phillips on behalf of the Authors (12 Apr 2022)  Author's response
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Apr 2022) by Alessandro Bianchini
RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (25 Apr 2022)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (26 Apr 2022)
ED: Publish as is (26 Apr 2022) by Alessandro Bianchini
ED: Publish as is (02 May 2022) by Paul Veers(Chief editor)
The authors performed a comparative study of modelling approaches for the interaction of wind turbines with nearby obstacles in siting analyses. Four different strategies were tested: the classical Perera model, a novel analytical model derived from an extensive dataset of CFD simulations (ANL), a modified urban dispersion model (QUIC-URB) and a machine-learning model, fitted to site-specific data. As benchmark for the evaluation of the models ‘performance, wind data derived from production data of a set of small turbines located in the Netherlands were employed. The analysis gives useful insights into the capabilities and limitations of the different models and how they affect the predicted production of the site.
The reviewer believes that the topic and the activity are very interesting, innovative and worthy of investigation. The approach is rigorous and consistent throughout the whole activity. The paper is well presented, and the results are clear. Some specific considerations:
The Reviewer recommends the publication of this paper after the proposed minor modifications have been performed.