Articles | Volume 7, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022
Research article
 | 
21 Oct 2022
Research article |  | 21 Oct 2022

The sensitivity of the Fitch wind farm parameterization to a three-dimensional planetary boundary layer scheme

Alex Rybchuk, Timothy W. Juliano, Julie K. Lundquist, David Rosencrans, Nicola Bodini, and Mike Optis

Related authors

Evaluating mesoscale model predictions of diurnal speedup events in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area of California
Robert S. Arthur, Alex Rybchuk, Timothy W. Juliano, Gabriel Rios, Sonia Wharton, Julie K. Lundquist, and Jerome D. Fast
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-137,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-137, 2024
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
The 2023 National Offshore Wind data set (NOW-23)
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
Seasonal variability of wake impacts on US mid-Atlantic offshore wind plant power production
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
A Twenty-Year Analysis of Winds in California for Offshore Wind Energy Production Using WRF v4.1.2
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Preprint withdrawn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

Related subject area

Thematic area: Wind and the atmosphere | Topic: Wind and turbulence
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
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 361–380, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-361-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-361-2025, 2025
Short summary
Periods of constant wind speed: how long do they last in the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer?
Daniela Moreno, Jan Friedrich, Matthias Wächter, Jörg Schwarte, and Joachim Peinke
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 347–360, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-347-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-347-2025, 2025
Short summary
Characterization of local wind profiles: a random forest approach for enhanced wind profile extrapolation
Farkhondeh (Hanie) Rouholahnejad and Julia Gottschall
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 143–159, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-143-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-143-2025, 2025
Short summary
Simulations suggest offshore wind farms modify low-level jets
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
On the lidar-turbulence paradox and possible countermeasures
Alfredo Peña, Ginka G. Yankova, and Vasiliki Mallini
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 83–102, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-83-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-83-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Archer, C. L., Colle, B. A., Monache, L. D., Dvorak, M. J., Lundquist, J., Bailey, B. H., Beaucage, P., Churchfield, M. J., Fitch, A. C., Kosovic, B., Lee, S., Moriarty, P. J., Simao, H., Stevens, R. J. A. M., Veron, D., and Zack, J.: Meteorology for Coastal/Offshore Wind Energy in the United States: Recommendations and Research Needs for the Next 10 Years, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 515–519, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00108.1, 2014. a, b
Archer, C. L., Wu, S., Vasel-Be-Hagh, A., Brodie, J. F., Delgado, R., St. Pé, A., Oncley, S., and Semmer, S.: The VERTEX Field Campaign: Observations of near-Ground Effects of Wind Turbine Wakes, J. Turbulence, 20, 64–92, https://doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2019.1572161, 2019. a
Archer, C. L., Wu, S., Ma, Y., and Jiménez, P. A.: Two Corrections for Turbulent Kinetic Energy Generated by Wind Farms in the WRF Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 4823–4835, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0097.1, 2020. a, b, c, d, e
Beiter, P., Musial, W., Duffy, P., Cooperman, A., Shields, M., Heimiller, D., and Optis, M.: The Cost of Floating Offshore Wind Energy in California Between 2019 and 2032, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-5000-77384, NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1710181, 2020. a
Bodini, N., Hu, W., Optis, M., Cervone, G., and Alessandrini, S.: Assessing Boundary Condition and Parametric Uncertainty in Numerical-Weather-Prediction-Modeled, Long-Term Offshore Wind Speed through Machine Learning and Analog Ensemble, Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 1363–1377, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1363-2021, 2021a. a
Download
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.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint