The Jensen wind farm parameterization

Ma, Yulong; Archer, Cristina L.; Vasel-Be-Hagh, Ahmadreza

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2407-2022

Articles | Volume 7, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2407-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2407-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 7, issue 6

Research article

|

09 Dec 2022

Research article |

| 09 Dec 2022

The Jensen wind farm parameterization

Yulong Ma, Cristina L. Archer, and Ahmadreza Vasel-Be-Hagh

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Dec 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Apr 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on wes-2022-19', Patrick Volker, 20 May 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-19/wes-2022-19-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-19-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Cristina Archer, 21 Jun 2022
  
  Please see attachment
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-19-AC1
RC2:
'Review of wes-2022-19', Paul van der Laan, 31 May 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-19/wes-2022-19-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-19-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Cristina Archer, 21 Jun 2022
  
  Please see attachment
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-19-AC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Cristina Archer on behalf of the Authors (21 Jun 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Jul 2022) by Andrea Hahmann

RR by Paul van der Laan (29 Jul 2022)

RR by Andrea Hahmann (02 Oct 2022)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Associate Editor review of wes-2022-19

Since the second referee was unavailable to review your answers to the revised manuscript, I have read and evaluated your answers and revised the manuscript myself.

I want to congratulate you on completing most of the revisions to the referee and my satisfaction. However, one of the points raised by referee Patrick Volker deserves some attention. I return to the point below.

Q1. You made a nice explanatory figure in response to the reviews. Why not add it to the manuscript? It will be helpful to explain the various overlap options graphically.

Q2. I am missing a discussion section in the manuscript. L566-569 does not belong in the conclusions and could be included in this new discussion section. In addition, in my opinion, two critical points deserve attention. (1) Wind farm parameterizations have been extensively used to study the possible farm-to-farm wakes (you cite a few in L46). [Many of the old studies are wrong because of the TKE advection bug in the WRF model that you helped to solve] These effects are much harder to evaluate in the parameterization because one needs data from two or more wind farms and/or many strategically located tall masts. But the important point is that improving the wind farm parameterization power production, as you have done in your manuscript, does not automatically improve the characterization of the wind farm wake, which is important for farm-to-farm studies. This point deserves to be mentioned in a discussion section. (2) The double counting of the wake effects is, in my option, real and should also be mentioned. Parameterizations, by definition, make many assumptions, and in your case, the wake of turbines in the upstream grid point could be accounted for twice. First, by the turbine wake overlap method and later when the WRF model advects the TKE and wind deficit downstream. By the way, the issue is not only in space but also in time. The wake from one turbine takes some time to travel to the next grid box. I don't mean that you should reformulate your scheme, but the point should be added to a discussion section.

Q3. Adding your scheme to the WRF repository is a valuable goal. However, this could take time. I would strongly encourage you to make the source code for your scheme available to the community. Maybe the code could be available by request?

In addition, I have a few minor points that should be corrected (lines refer to the ATC manuscript line numbers):

1. Please ensure that all units follow the WES guidelines of units formatted with negative exponents. Some of the units in the figure axis in the manuscript do not; also, in L518.
2. I am old fashion, and I think the model WRF should be referred to as "the WRF model" not just "WRF."
3. L17. It should be "..., and as wind turbine ROTORS expand in diameter..."
4. L18. "Wind turbine ... decrease wind farm power production." Concerning what? I suggest you revise the sentence.
5. L42. I think it will be better to cite a peer-reviewed paper than an unavailable conference abstract. I propose Volker et al (2017), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5d86, since you are already citing one of P. Volker's manuscripts.
6. L44. The WRF abbreviation refers to Weather, Research and ForecastING.
7. Figure 1. The wind turbines' locations are shown by black circles... BTW, what are the red arrows? It is not explained in the caption.
8. L264. "The Lillgrund wind farm is located in Sweden." -> "The Lillgrund wind farm is located in a narrow straight between Denmark and Sweden."
9. L354. Figure 3 shows THE relative...
10. L534. Maybe "Fig. 8a in Pan and Archer (2018)..."

Andrea Hahmann

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Oct 2022) by Andrea Hahmann

AR by Cristina Archer on behalf of the Authors (28 Oct 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (31 Oct 2022) by Andrea Hahmann

ED: Publish as is (05 Nov 2022) by Jakob Mann (Chief editor)

AR by Cristina Archer on behalf of the Authors (09 Nov 2022) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Wind turbine wakes are important because they reduce the power production of wind farms and may cause unintended impacts on the weather around wind farms. Weather prediction models, like WRF and MPAS, are often used to predict both power and impacts of wind farms, but they lack an accurate treatment of wind farm wakes. We developed the Jensen wind farm parameterization, based on the existing Jensen model of an idealized wake. The Jensen parameterization is accurate and computationally efficient.