Articles | Volume 7, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-659-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-7-659-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
24 Mar 2022
Research article |
| 24 Mar 2022
| 24 Mar 2022
Validation of wind resource and energy production simulations for small wind turbines in the United States
Lindsay M. Sheridan
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Caleb Phillips
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA
Alice C. Orrell
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Larry K. Berg
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Heidi Tinnesand
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA
Raj K. Rai
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Sagi Zisman
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA
Dmitry Duplyakin
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA
Julia E. Flaherty
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Related authors
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Jiali Wang, Caroline Draxl, Nicola Bodini, Caleb Phillips, Dmitry Duplyakin, Heidi Tinnesand, Raj K. Rai, Julia E. Flaherty, Larry K. Berg, Chunyong Jung, Ethan Young, and Rao Kotamarthi
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1551–1574, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1551-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1551-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Three recent wind resource datasets are assessed for their skills in representing annual average wind speeds and seasonal, diurnal, and interannual trends in the wind resource in coastal locations to support customers interested in small and midsize wind energy.
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Dmitry Duplyakin, Caleb Phillips, Heidi Tinnesand, Raj K. Rai, Julia E. Flaherty, and Larry K. Berg
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1451–1470, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1451-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1451-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A total of 12 months of onsite wind measurement is standard for correcting model-based long-term wind speed estimates for utility-scale wind farms; however, the time and capital investment involved in gathering onsite measurements must be reconciled with the energy needs and funding opportunities for distributed wind projects. This study aims to answer the question of how short you can go in terms of the observational time period needed to make impactful improvements to long-term wind speed estimates.
Kyle Peco, Jiali Wang, Chunyong Jung, Gökhan Sever, Lindsay Sheridan, Jeremy Feinstein, Rao Kotamarthi, Caroline Draxl, Ethan Young, Avi Purkayastha, and Andrew Kumler
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-13, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-13, 2025
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a new wind dataset, generated by a climate model, that can help facilitate efforts in wind energy. By providing data across much of North America, this dataset can offer insights into the wind patterns in more understudied regions. By validating the dataset against actual wind observations, we have demonstrated that this dataset is able to accurately capture the wind patterns of different geographic areas, which can help identify locations for wind energy farms.
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, William I. Gustafson Jr., Ye Liu, Brian J. Gaudet, Nicola Bodini, Rob K. Newsom, and Mikhail Pekour
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 741–758, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In 2020, lidar-mounted buoys owned by the US Department of Energy (DOE) were deployed off the California coast in two wind energy lease areas and provided valuable year-long analyses of offshore low-level jet (LLJ) characteristics at heights relevant to wind turbines. In addition to the LLJ climatology, this work provides validation of LLJ representation in atmospheric models that are essential for assessing the potential energy yield of offshore wind farms.
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Gabriel García Medina, Brian Gaudet, William I. Gustafson Jr., Evgueni I. Kassianov, Jinliang Liu, Rob K. Newsom, Lindsay M. Sheridan, and Alicia M. Mahon
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5667–5699, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5667-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5667-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Our understanding and ability to observe and model air–sea processes has been identified as a principal limitation to our ability to predict future weather. Few observations exist offshore along the coast of California. To improve our understanding of the air–sea transition zone and support the wind energy industry, two buoys with state-of-the-art equipment were deployed for 1 year. In this article, we present details of the post-processing, algorithms, and analyses.
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Raghu Krishnamurthy, Gabriel García Medina, Brian J. Gaudet, William I. Gustafson Jr., Alicia M. Mahon, William J. Shaw, Rob K. Newsom, Mikhail Pekour, and Zhaoqing Yang
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2059–2084, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2059-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2059-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Using observations from lidar buoys, five reanalysis and analysis models that support the wind energy community are validated offshore and at rotor-level heights along the California Pacific coast. The models are found to underestimate the observed wind resource. Occasions of large model error occur in conjunction with stable atmospheric conditions, wind speeds associated with peak turbine power production, and mischaracterization of the diurnal wind speed cycle in summer months.
Caleb Phillips, Lindsay M. Sheridan, Patrick Conry, Dimitrios K. Fytanidis, Dmitry Duplyakin, Sagi Zisman, Nicolas Duboc, Matt Nelson, Rao Kotamarthi, Rod Linn, Marc Broersma, Timo Spijkerboer, and Heidi Tinnesand
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1153–1169, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1153-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1153-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Adoption of distributed wind turbines for energy generation is hindered by challenges associated with siting and accurate estimation of the wind resource. This study evaluates classic and commonly used methods alongside new state-of-the-art models derived from simulations and machine learning approaches using a large dataset from the Netherlands. We find that data-driven methods are most effective at predicting production at real sites and new models reliably outperform classic methods.
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Jiali Wang, Caroline Draxl, Nicola Bodini, Caleb Phillips, Dmitry Duplyakin, Heidi Tinnesand, Raj K. Rai, Julia E. Flaherty, Larry K. Berg, Chunyong Jung, Ethan Young, and Rao Kotamarthi
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1551–1574, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1551-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1551-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Three recent wind resource datasets are assessed for their skills in representing annual average wind speeds and seasonal, diurnal, and interannual trends in the wind resource in coastal locations to support customers interested in small and midsize wind energy.
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Dmitry Duplyakin, Caleb Phillips, Heidi Tinnesand, Raj K. Rai, Julia E. Flaherty, and Larry K. Berg
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1451–1470, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1451-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1451-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A total of 12 months of onsite wind measurement is standard for correcting model-based long-term wind speed estimates for utility-scale wind farms; however, the time and capital investment involved in gathering onsite measurements must be reconciled with the energy needs and funding opportunities for distributed wind projects. This study aims to answer the question of how short you can go in terms of the observational time period needed to make impactful improvements to long-term wind speed estimates.
Jane Lockshin, Paula Pérez, Slater Podgorny, Michaela Sizemore, Paritosh Das, Jeffrey D. Laurence-Chasen, Paul Crook, and Caleb Phillips
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1231–1248, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1231-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1231-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines the potential for distributed wind energy across the contiguous United States by leveraging a novel modeling approach that utilizes a high-resolution dataset and analyzes over 150 million parcels. Modeling results reveal substantial opportunities for energy generation using distributed wind technologies. Additionally, findings reveal a substantial increase from prior modeling results in estimated technical and economic potential for distributed wind.
Branko Kosović, Sukanta Basu, Jacob Berg, Larry K. Berg, Sue E. Haupt, Xiaoli G. Larsén, Joachim Peinke, Richard J. A. M. Stevens, Paul Veers, and Simon Watson
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-42, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-42, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Most human activity happens in the layer of the atmosphere which extends a few hundred meters to a couple of kilometers above the surface of the Earth. The flow in this layer is turbulent. Turbulence impacts wind power production and turbine lifespan. Optimizing wind turbine performance requires understanding how turbulence affects both wind turbine efficiency and reliability. This paper points to gaps in our knowledge that need to be addressed to effectively utilize wind resources.
Kyle Peco, Jiali Wang, Chunyong Jung, Gökhan Sever, Lindsay Sheridan, Jeremy Feinstein, Rao Kotamarthi, Caroline Draxl, Ethan Young, Avi Purkayastha, and Andrew Kumler
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-13, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-13, 2025
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a new wind dataset, generated by a climate model, that can help facilitate efforts in wind energy. By providing data across much of North America, this dataset can offer insights into the wind patterns in more understudied regions. By validating the dataset against actual wind observations, we have demonstrated that this dataset is able to accurately capture the wind patterns of different geographic areas, which can help identify locations for wind energy farms.
Sheng-Lun Tai, Zhao Yang, Brian Gaudet, Koichi Sakaguchi, Larry Berg, Colleen Kaul, Yun Qian, Ye Liu, and Jerome Fast
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-599, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-599, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Our study created a high-resolution soil moisture dataset for the eastern U.S. by integrating satellite data with a land surface model and advanced algorithms, achieving 1-km scale analyses. Validated against multiple networks and datasets, it demonstrated superior accuracy. This dataset is vital for understanding soil moisture dynamics, especially during droughts, and highlights the need for improved modeling of clay soils to refine future predictions.
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.
Ye Liu, Yun Qian, Larry K. Berg, Zhe Feng, Jianfeng Li, Jingyi Chen, and Zhao Yang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8165–8181, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8165-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8165-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Deep convection under various large-scale meteorological patterns (LSMPs) shows distinct precipitation features. In southeastern Texas, mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) contribute significantly to precipitation year-round, while isolated deep convection (IDC) is prominent in summer and fall. Self-organizing maps (SOMs) reveal convection can occur without large-scale lifting or moisture convergence. MCSs and IDC events have distinct life cycles influenced by specific LSMPs.
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, William I. Gustafson Jr., Ye Liu, Brian J. Gaudet, Nicola Bodini, Rob K. Newsom, and Mikhail Pekour
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 741–758, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In 2020, lidar-mounted buoys owned by the US Department of Energy (DOE) were deployed off the California coast in two wind energy lease areas and provided valuable year-long analyses of offshore low-level jet (LLJ) characteristics at heights relevant to wind turbines. In addition to the LLJ climatology, this work provides validation of LLJ representation in atmospheric models that are essential for assessing the potential energy yield of offshore wind farms.
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Gabriel García Medina, Brian Gaudet, William I. Gustafson Jr., Evgueni I. Kassianov, Jinliang Liu, Rob K. Newsom, Lindsay M. Sheridan, and Alicia M. Mahon
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5667–5699, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5667-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5667-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Our understanding and ability to observe and model air–sea processes has been identified as a principal limitation to our ability to predict future weather. Few observations exist offshore along the coast of California. To improve our understanding of the air–sea transition zone and support the wind energy industry, two buoys with state-of-the-art equipment were deployed for 1 year. In this article, we present details of the post-processing, algorithms, and analyses.
Sue Ellen Haupt, Branko Kosović, Larry K. Berg, Colleen M. Kaul, Matthew Churchfield, Jeffrey Mirocha, Dries Allaerts, Thomas Brummet, Shannon Davis, Amy DeCastro, Susan Dettling, Caroline Draxl, David John Gagne, Patrick Hawbecker, Pankaj Jha, Timothy Juliano, William Lassman, Eliot Quon, Raj K. Rai, Michael Robinson, William Shaw, and Regis Thedin
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1251–1275, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1251-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1251-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Mesoscale to Microscale Coupling team, part of the U.S. Department of Energy Atmosphere to Electrons (A2e) initiative, has studied various important challenges related to coupling mesoscale models to microscale models. Lessons learned and discerned best practices are described in the context of the cases studied for the purpose of enabling further deployment of wind energy. It also points to code, assessment tools, and data for testing the methods.
Sheng-Lun Tai, Larry K. Berg, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob Newsom, and Anthony Kirincich
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 433–448, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-433-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Turbulence intensity is critical for wind turbine design and operation as it affects wind power generation efficiency. Turbulence measurements in the marine environment are limited. We use a model to derive turbulence intensity and test how sea surface temperature data may impact the simulated turbulence intensity and atmospheric stability. The model slightly underestimates turbulence, and improved sea surface temperature data reduce the bias. Error with unrealistic mesoscale flow is identified.
William J. Shaw, Larry K. Berg, Mithu Debnath, Georgios Deskos, Caroline Draxl, Virendra P. Ghate, Charlotte B. Hasager, Rao Kotamarthi, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, Paytsar Muradyan, William J. Pringle, David D. Turner, and James M. Wilczak
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2307–2334, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2307-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2307-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides a review of prominent scientific challenges to characterizing the offshore wind resource using as examples phenomena that occur in the rapidly developing wind energy areas off the United States. The paper also describes the current state of modeling and observations in the marine atmospheric boundary layer and provides specific recommendations for filling key current knowledge gaps.
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Raghu Krishnamurthy, Gabriel García Medina, Brian J. Gaudet, William I. Gustafson Jr., Alicia M. Mahon, William J. Shaw, Rob K. Newsom, Mikhail Pekour, and Zhaoqing Yang
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2059–2084, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2059-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2059-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Using observations from lidar buoys, five reanalysis and analysis models that support the wind energy community are validated offshore and at rotor-level heights along the California Pacific coast. The models are found to underestimate the observed wind resource. Occasions of large model error occur in conjunction with stable atmospheric conditions, wind speeds associated with peak turbine power production, and mischaracterization of the diurnal wind speed cycle in summer months.
Alessandro Bianchini, Galih Bangga, Ian Baring-Gould, Alessandro Croce, José Ignacio Cruz, Rick Damiani, Gareth Erfort, Carlos Simao Ferreira, David Infield, Christian Navid Nayeri, George Pechlivanoglou, Mark Runacres, Gerard Schepers, Brent Summerville, David Wood, and Alice Orrell
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2003–2037, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2003-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2003-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The paper is part of the Grand Challenges Papers for Wind Energy. It provides a status of small wind turbine technology in terms of technical maturity, diffusion, and cost. Then, five grand challenges that are thought to be key to fostering the development of the technology are proposed. To tackle these challenges, a series of unknowns and gaps are first identified and discussed. Improvement areas are highlighted, within which 10 key enabling actions are finally proposed to the wind community.
Caleb Phillips, Lindsay M. Sheridan, Patrick Conry, Dimitrios K. Fytanidis, Dmitry Duplyakin, Sagi Zisman, Nicolas Duboc, Matt Nelson, Rao Kotamarthi, Rod Linn, Marc Broersma, Timo Spijkerboer, and Heidi Tinnesand
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1153–1169, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1153-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1153-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Adoption of distributed wind turbines for energy generation is hindered by challenges associated with siting and accurate estimation of the wind resource. This study evaluates classic and commonly used methods alongside new state-of-the-art models derived from simulations and machine learning approaches using a large dataset from the Netherlands. We find that data-driven methods are most effective at predicting production at real sites and new models reliably outperform classic methods.
Po-Lun Ma, Bryce E. Harrop, Vincent E. Larson, Richard B. Neale, Andrew Gettelman, Hugh Morrison, Hailong Wang, Kai Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Mark D. Zelinka, Yuying Zhang, Yun Qian, Jin-Ho Yoon, Christopher R. Jones, Meng Huang, Sheng-Lun Tai, Balwinder Singh, Peter A. Bogenschutz, Xue Zheng, Wuyin Lin, Johannes Quaas, Hélène Chepfer, Michael A. Brunke, Xubin Zeng, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Samson Hagos, Zhibo Zhang, Hua Song, Xiaohong Liu, Michael S. Pritchard, Hui Wan, Jingyu Wang, Qi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Jiwen Fan, Larry K. Berg, Jerome D. Fast, Mark A. Taylor, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Shaocheng Xie, Philip J. Rasch, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2881–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An alternative set of parameters for E3SM Atmospheric Model version 1 has been developed based on a tuning strategy that focuses on clouds. When clouds in every regime are improved, other aspects of the model are also improved, even though they are not the direct targets for calibration. The recalibrated model shows a lower sensitivity to anthropogenic aerosols and surface warming, suggesting potential improvements to the simulated climate in the past and future.
Ye Liu, Yun Qian, and Larry K. Berg
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 37–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-37-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-37-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainties in initial conditions (ICs) decrease the accuracy of wind speed forecasts. We find that IC uncertainties can alter wind speed by modulating the weather system. IC uncertainties in local thermal gradient and large-scale circulation jointly contribute to wind speed forecast uncertainties. Wind forecast accuracy in the Columbia River Basin is confined by initial uncertainties in a few specific regions, providing useful information for more intense measurement and modeling studies.
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob K. Newsom, Larry K. Berg, Heng Xiao, Po-Lun Ma, and David D. Turner
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 4403–4424, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4403-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4403-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Planetary boundary layer (PBL) height is a critical parameter in atmospheric models. Continuous PBL height measurements from remote sensing measurements are important to understand various boundary layer mechanisms, especially during daytime and evening transition periods. Due to several limitations in existing methodologies to detect PBL height from a Doppler lidar, in this study, a machine learning (ML) approach is tested. The ML model is observed to improve the accuracy by over 50 %.
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.
Cited articles
Acker, T. L., Bhattarai, B., and Shrestha, R.: Distributed Wind Resource Assessment for Small, Kilowatt-Sized Wind Turbines using Computational Flow Modeling Software, NAWEA WindTech 2019, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1452, 012013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1452/1/012013, 2019.
Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne 60 m Meteorological Tower, Argonne National Laboratory [data set], https://www.atmos.anl.gov/ANLMET/, last access: 6 November 2020.
Bechmann, A., Conti, D., Davis, N., Hansen, B. O., Kelly, M. C., Mortensen, N. G., Nielsen, M., Badger, J., and Pena Diaz, A.: MyWindTurbine – Energy Yield Calculations, DTU Wind Energy E No. 0132, DTU Wind Energy, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2721908714243871265&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48 (last access: 21 March 2022), 2016.
Bednar, D. J. and Reames, T. G.: Recognition and response to energy poverty in the United States, Nature Energy, 5, 432–439, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0582-0, 2020.
Bergey WindPower Co.: Wind Report, Bergey WindPower Co. [data set], http://www.newrootsenergy.com/page/wind_report, last access: 22 August 2021.
Bonneville Power Administration: BPA Meteorological Information, Bonneville Power Administration [data set], https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/MetData/default.aspx, last access: 1 April 2020.
Brookhaven National Laboratory: Current Observations, Brookhaven National Laboratory [data set], https://wx1.bnl.gov/, last access: 14 April 2020.
Brune, S., Keller, J. D., and Wahl, S.: Evaluation of wind speed estimates in reanalyses for wind energy applications, Adv. Sci. Res., 18, 115–126, https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-18-115-2021, 2021.
B2SHARE: The Tall Tower Dataset, B2SHARE [data set], https://b2share.eudat.eu/records/159158152f4d4be79559e2f3f6b1a410, last access: 9 March 2020.
Carvalho, D.: An Assessment of NASA's GMAO MERRA-2 Reanalysis Surface Winds, J. Climate, 32, 8261–8281, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0199.1, 2019.
Crawford, K. C. and Hudson, H. K.: The Diurnal Wind Variation in the Lowest 1500 ft in Central Oklahoma: June 1966–May 1967, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 12, 127–132, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1973)012%3C0127:TDWVIT%3E2.0.CO;2, 1973.
Devine, M. J., Manwell, J., Baring-Gould, I., and Petrie,
B.: Wind-Diesel Hybrid Options for Remote Villages in Alaska, in: Proceedings of the AWEA Annual Conference, 28–31 March 2004, Chicago, IL, USA, 2004.
Dilley, L. M. and Hulse, L.: Foundation design of wind turbines in Southwestern Alaska, a case study, in: The Arctic Energy Summit, October 2007, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2007–2008.
Djalalova, I., Wind Forecast Improvement Project 1, US Department of Energy, [data set], https://a2e.energy.gov/projects/wfip1, last access: 30 July 2021.
Draxl, C., Clifton, A., Hodge, B.-M., and McCaa, J.: The Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit, Appl. Energ., 151, 355–366, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.121, 2015a.
Draxl, C., Hodge, B.-M., Clifton, A., and McCaa, J.: Overview and Meteorological Validation of the Wind Integration National Dataset Toolkit, NREL/TP-5000-61740, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1214985, 2015b.
Drew, D. R., Barlow, J. F., Cockerill, T. T., and Vahdati, M. M.: The importance of accurate wind resource assessment for evaluating the economic viability of small wind turbines, Renew. Energ., 77, 493–500, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.032, 2015.
DTU Wind Energy and EMD International A/S: MyWindTurbine.com, DTU Wind Energy and EMD International A/S [data set], https://www.mywindturbine.com/, last access: 22 August 2021.
DTU Wind Energy and World Bank Group: Global Wind Atlas, DTU Wind Energy and World Bank Group [data set], https://globalwindatlas.info/, last access: 15 December 2021.
Duplyakin, D., Zisman, S., Phillips, C., and Tinnesand, H.: Bias Characterization, Vertical Interpolation, and Horizontal Interpolation for Distributed Wind Siting Using Mesoscale Wind Resource Estimates, NREL/TP-2C00-78412, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1760659, 2021.
ECMWF: ERA5, ECMWF [data set], https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era5, last access: 9 April 2021.
Ezeanya, E. K., Massiha, G. H., Simon, W. E., Rausch, J. R., and Chambers, T. L.: System advisor model (SAM) simulation modelling of a concentrating solar thermal power plant with comparison to actual performance data, Cogent Engineering, 5, 1524051, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1524051, 2018.
Fathollahzadeh, M. H., Speake, A., Tabares-Velasco, P. C., Khademian, Z., and Fight, L. L.: Renewable energy analysis in indigenous communities using bottom-up demand prediction, Sustain. Cities Soc., 71, 102932, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102932, 2021.
Fay, M. P. and Proschan, M. A.: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules, Statistics Survey, 4, 1–37, https://doi.org/10.1214%2F09-SS051, 2010.
Fields, J., Tinnesand, H., and Baring-Gould, I.: Distributed Wind Resource Assessment: State of the Industry, NREL/TP-5000-66419, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1257326, 2016.
Freeman, J., Whitmore, J., Kaffine, L., Blair, N., and Dobos, A. P.: System Advisor Model: Flat Plate Photovoltaic Performance Modeling Validation Report, NREL/TP-6A20-60204, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1115788, 2013.
Freeman, J. M., DiOrio, N., Blair, N., Guittet, D., Gilman, P., and Janzou, S.: Improvement and Validation of the System Advisor Model, DOE-NREL-30360, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1495693, 2019.
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A., da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D., Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putnam, W., Rienecker, M., Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30, 5419–5454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1, 2017.
Global Wind Atlas: Global Wind Atlas, https://globalwindatlas.info/, last access: 22 August 2021.
Gruber, K., Klöckl, C., Regner, P., Baumgartner, J., and Schmidt, J.: Assessing the Global Wind Atlas and local measurements for bias correction of wind power generation simulated from MERRA-2 in Brazil, Energy, 189, 116212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116212, 2019.
Hahmann, A. N., Vincent, C. L., Peña, A., Lange, J., and Hasager, C. B.: Wind climate estimation using WRF model output: method and model sensitivities over the sea, Int. J. Climatol., 35, 3422–3439, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4217, 2014.
Hamlington, B. D., Hamlington, P. E., Collins, S. G., Alexander, S. R., and Kim, K-Y.: Effects of climate oscillations on wind resource variability in the United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 145–152, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062370, 2015.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 Global Reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020.
Hodge, B.-M.: Final Report on the Creation of the Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit and API: October 1, 2013–September 30, 2015, NREL/SR-5D00-66189, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1247462, 2016.
Jourdier, B.: Evaluation of ERA5, MERRA-2, COSMO-REA6, NEWA and AROME to simulate wind power production over France, Adv. Sci. Res., 17, 63–77, https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-17-63-2020, 2020.
Kalverla, P. C., Holtslag, A. A. M., Ronda, R. J., and Steeneveld, G.-J.: Quality of wind characteristics in recent wind atlases over the North Sea, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 146, 1498–1515, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3748, 2020.
Kolbert, E.: The island in the wind, New Yorker, 7, 68–77, 2008.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: AmeriFlux, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [data set], https://ameriflux.lbl.gov/sites/site-search/#filter-type=all&has-data=All&site_id=, last access: 9 March 2020.
Molina, M. O., Gutiérrez, C., and Sánchez, E.: Comparison of ERA5 surface wind speed climatologies over Europe with observations from the HadISD dataset, Int. J. Climatol., 41, 4864–4878, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7103, 2021.
NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC: ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model NetCDF V003, https://doi.org/10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM_NC.003, 2019.
NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office: Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2, NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office [data set], https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/reanalysis/MERRA-2/data_access/, last access: 9 April 2021.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction: Integrated Surface Dataset, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction [data set], https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/search/data-search/global-hourly, last access: 30 July 2021.
NOAA National Data Buoy Center: National Data Buoy Center [data set], https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/, last access: 8 July 2021.
NREL: Flatirons Campus Data, NREL [data set], https://www.nrel.gov/wind/nwtc/data.html, last access: 9 March 2020.
NREL: System Advisor Model (SAM), NREL [data set], https://sam.nrel.gov/ (last access: 22 August 2021), 2021a.
NREL: Wind Resource Maps and Data, https://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind-resource-maps.html (last access: 22 August 2021), 2021b.
NREL: Wind Integration National Dataset Toolkit, NREL [data set], https://www.nrel.gov/grid/wind-toolkit.html (last access: 26 July 2021), 2021c.
Olauson, J.: ERA5: The new champion of wind power modelling?, Renew. Energ., 126, 322–331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.056, 2018.
Olauson, J. and Bergkvist, M.: Modelling the Swedish wind power production using MERRA reanalysis data, Renew. Energ., 76717–76725, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.085, 2015.
Orrell, A. C., Foster, N. A., Morris, S. L., Homer, J. S., Preziuso, D. C., and Poehlman, E. A.: 2017 Distributed Wind Market Report, PNNL-27646, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1592336, 2018.
Orrell, A. C., Kazimierczuk, K., and Sheridan, L. M.: Distributed Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition, DOE/GO-102021-5620, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/1817750, 2021.
Poudel, R., Tinnesand, H., and Baring-Gould, I. E.: An Evaluation of Advanced Tools for Distributed Wind Turbine Performance Estimation, NAWEA WindTech 2019, 14–16 October 2019, Amherst, MA (United States), J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1452, 012017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1452/1/012017, 2019.
Pronk, V., Bodini, N., Optis, M., Lundquist, J. K., Moriarty, P., Draxl, C., Purkayastha, A., and Young, E.: Can reanalysis products outperform mesoscale numerical weather prediction models in modeling the wind resource in simple terrain?, Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 487–504, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-487-2022, 2022.
Pryor, S. C. and Barthelmie, R. J.: A global assessment of extreme wind speeds for wind energy applications, Nature Energy, 6, 268–276, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00773-7, 2021.
Rabbani, R. and Zeeshan, M.: Exploring the suitability of MERRA-2 reanalysis data for wind energy estimation, analysis of wind characteristics and energy potential assessment for selected sites in Pakistan, Renew. Energ., 154, 1240–1251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.100, 2020.
Ramon, J., Lledó, L., Torralba, V., Soret, A., and Doblas-Reyes, F. J.: Which global reanalysis best represents near-surface winds?, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 145, 3236–3251, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3616, 2019.
Rudié, E., Thornton, A., Rajendra, N., and Kerrigan, S.: System Advisor Model performance modeling validation report: Analysis of 100 sites, Locus Energy, LLC, Hoboken, NJ (United States) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA, 2014.
Samal, R. L.: Assessment of wind energy potential using reanalysis data: A comparison with mast measurements, J. Clean. Prod., 313, 127933, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127933, 2021.
Storm, B. and Basu, S.: The WRF Model Forecast-Derived Low-Level Wind Shear Climatology over the United States Great Plains, Energies, 3, 258–276, https://doi.org/10.3390/en3020258, 2010.
Takle, E., Cai, B., and Sritharan, S.: Wind Energy Potential at Six Locations in the Midwest US at Higher Hub Heights, in: International Conference on Future Technologies for Wind Energy, 24–26 October 2017, Boulder, CO, USA, https://windtechconferences.org/2017-2/abstracts/ (last access: 21 March 2022), 2017.
University of Massachusetts Wind Energy Center: Resource Data, University of Massachusetts Wind Energy Center [data set], https://www.umass.edu/windenergy/resourcedata, last access: 12 March 2020.
Wang, Y.-H., Walter, R. K., White, C., Farr, H., and Ruttenberg, B. I.: Assessment of surface wind datasets for estimating offshore wind energy along the Central California Coast, Renew. Energ., 133, 343–353, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.008, 2019.
Wilczak, J., Finley, C., Freedman, J., Cline, J., Bianco, L., Olson, J., Djalalova, I., Sheridan, L., Ahlstrom, M., Manobianco, J., Zack, J., Carley, J.R., Benjamin, S., Coulter, R., Berg, L.K., Mirocha, J., Clawson, K., Natenberg, E., and Marquis, M.: The Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP): A public–private partnership addressing wind energy forecast needs, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 1699–1718, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00107.1, 2015.
Short summary
The small wind community relies on simplified wind models and energy production simulation tools to obtain energy generation expectations. We gathered actual wind speed and turbine production data across the US to test the accuracy of models and tools for small wind turbines. This study provides small wind installers and owners with the error metrics and sources of error associated with using models and tools to make performance estimates, empowering them to adjust expectations accordingly.
The small wind community relies on simplified wind models and energy production simulation tools...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint