Articles | Volume 9, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-697-2024
© Author(s) 2024. 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-9-697-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
20 Mar 2024
Research article |
| 20 Mar 2024
| 20 Mar 2024
Mesoscale modelling of North Sea wind resources with COSMO-CLM: model evaluation and impact assessment of future wind farm characteristics on cluster-scale wake losses
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Marieke Dirksen
Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
Ine L. Wijnant
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
Andrew Stepek
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
Ad Stoffelen
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
Naveed Akhtar
Institute of Coastal Systems – Analysis and Modeling, Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Geesthacht, Germany
Jérôme Neirynck
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Jonas Van de Walle
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Johan Meyers
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Nicole P. M. van Lipzig
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Related authors
Jérôme Neirynck, Jonas Van de Walle, Ruben Borgers, Sebastiaan Jamaer, Johan Meyers, Ad Stoffelen, and Nicole P. M. van Lipzig
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1695–1711, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1695-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1695-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In our study, we assess how mesoscale weather systems influence wind speed variations and their impact on offshore wind energy production fluctuations. We have observed, for instance, that weather systems originating over land lead to sea wind speed variations. Additionally, we noted that power fluctuations are typically more significant in summer, despite potentially larger winter wind speed variations. These findings are valuable for grid management and optimizing renewable energy deployment.
Sara Porchetta, Michael F. Howland, Ruben Borgers, Sophia Buckingham, and Wim Munters
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-58, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-58, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study delves into how hourly and monthly variations of wakes of a newly constructed wind farm cluster impacts adjacent existing farms. Using a simulation of a full year, it compares results from both a numerical weather prediction model and different fast-running engineering models. The results reveal significant differences in wake predictions, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Such insights are important for making informed decisions for the siting and design of future wind turbines.
Florian Sauerland, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Sylvain Marchi, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, François Klein, François Massonnet, Bianca Mezzina, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Charles Pelletier, Deborah Verfaillie, Lars Zipf, and Nicole van Lipzig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
We simulated the Antarctic climate from 1985 to 2014. Our model is driven using the ERA-5 reanalysis for one simulation and the EC-Earth global climate model for three others. Most of the simulated trends, such as sea ice extent and precipitation over land, have opposite signs for the two drivers, but agree between the three EC-Earth driven simulations. We conclude that these opposing trends must be due to the different drivers, and that the climate over land is less predictable than over sea.
Stefan Ivanell, Warit Chanprasert, Luca Lanzilao, James Bleeg, Johan Meyers, Antoine Mathieu, Søren Juhl Andersen, Rem-Sophia Mouradi, Eric Dupont, Hugo Olivares-Espinosa, and Niels Troldborg
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-88, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-88, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores how the height of the atmosphere's boundary layer impacts wind farm performance, focusing on how this factor influences energy output. By simulating different boundary layer heights and conditions, the research reveals that deeper layers promote better energy recovery. The findings highlight the importance of considering atmospheric conditions when simulating wind farms to maximize energy efficiency, offering valuable insights for the wind energy industry.
Alberto Elizalde, Naveed Akhtar, Beate Geyer, and Corinna Schrum
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-64, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-64, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
As green energy demand rises, offshore wind farms in the North Sea are expanding. This study examines the uncertainties in power output predictions, considering turbine arrangements and weather conditions. Using an advanced climate model, we found that power output can vary by up to 13 %. These findings are vital for accurate economic and environmental planning. This research will contribute to a better understanding of the potential of offshore wind energy.
Jens Peter Karolus Wenceslaus Frankemölle, Johan Camps, Pieter De Meutter, and Johan Meyers
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1989–2003, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1989-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1989-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To detect anomalous radioactivity in the environment, it is paramount that we understand the natural background level. In this work, we propose a statistical model to describe the most likely background level and the associated uncertainty in a network of dose rate detectors. We train, verify, and validate the model using real environmental data. Using the model, we show that we can correctly predict the background level in a subset of the detector network during a known
anomalous event.
Théo Delvaux and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 613–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The work explores the potential for wind farm load reduction and power maximization. We carried out a series of high-fidelity large-eddy simulations for a wide range of atmospheric conditions and operating regimes. Because of turbine-scale interactions and large-scale effects, we observed that maximum power extraction is achieved at regimes lower than the Betz operating point. Thus, we proposed three simple approaches with which thrust significantly decreases with only a limited impact on power.
Andrew Kirby, Takafumi Nishino, Luca Lanzilao, Thomas D. Dunstan, and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 435–450, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-435-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-435-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Traditionally, the aerodynamic loss of wind farm efficiency is classified into wake loss and farm blockage loss. This study, using high-fidelity simulations, shows that neither of these two losses is well correlated with the overall farm efficiency. We propose new measures called turbine-scale efficiency and farm-scale efficiency to better describe turbine–wake effects and farm–atmosphere interactions. This study suggests the importance of better modelling farm-scale loss in future studies.
Olivier Ndindayino, Augustin Puel, and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-6, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-6, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Our aim is to understand the relationship between flow blockage and improved wind farm efficiency using large-eddy simulations, as well as developing an analytical model that shows promise for improving turbine power predictions under blockage. We found that blockage enhances turbine power and thrust by inducing a favourable pressure drop across the turbine row, while simultaneously inducing an unfavourable pressure increase downstream which has minimal direct impact on far wake development.
Xingou Xu and Ad Stoffelen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3840, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3840, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
In this research, the definition of Quality Control indicators for scatterometers are reviewed, then with SIC and IBC products, their abilities of in ice screening are extensively investigated. To decimating between the rain effect, collocated rain information is also obtained for analysing. This research for the first time addresses the effective information for sea ice from sources other than the directly observed NRCS alone.
Lev D. Labzovskii, Gerd-Jan van Zadelhoff, David P. Donovan, Jos de Kloe, L. Gijsbert Tilstra, Ad Stoffelen, Damien Josset, and Piet Stammes
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 7183–7208, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-7183-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-7183-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Atmospheric Laser Doppler Instrument (ALADIN) on the Aeolus satellite was the first of its kind to measure high-resolution vertical profiles of aerosols and cloud properties from space. We present an algorithm that produces Aeolus lidar surface returns (LSRs), containing useful information for measuring UV reflectivity. Aeolus LSRs matched well with existing UV reflectivity data from other satellites, like GOME-2 and TROPOMI, and demonstrated excellent sensitivity to modeled snow cover.
Florian Sauerland, Niels Souverijns, Anna Possner, Heike Wex, Preben Van Overmeiren, Alexander Mangold, Kwinten Van Weverberg, and Nicole van Lipzig
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13751–13768, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We use a regional climate model, COSMO-CLM², enhanced with a module resolving aerosol processes, to study Antarctic clouds. We prescribe different concentrations of ice-nucleating particles to our model to assess how these clouds respond to concentration changes, validating results with cloud and aerosol observations from the Princess Elisabeth Antarctica station. Our results show that aerosol–cloud interactions vary with temperature, providing valuable insights into Antarctic cloud dynamics.
Majid Bastankhah, Marcus Becker, Matthew Churchfield, Caroline Draxl, Jay Prakash Goit, Mehtab Khan, Luis A. Martinez Tossas, Johan Meyers, Patrick Moriarty, Wim Munters, Asim Önder, Sara Porchetta, Eliot Quon, Ishaan Sood, Nicole van Lipzig, Jan-Willem van Wingerden, Paul Veers, and Simon Watson
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 2171–2174, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-2171-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-2171-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Dries Allaerts was born on 19 May 1989 and passed away at his home in Wezemaal, Belgium, on 10 October 2024 after battling cancer. Dries started his wind energy career in 2012 and had a profound impact afterward on the community, in terms of both his scientific realizations and his many friendships and collaborations in the field. His scientific acumen, open spirit of collaboration, positive attitude towards life, and playful and often cheeky sense of humor will be deeply missed by many.
Karina von Schuckmann, Lorena Moreira, Mathilde Cancet, Flora Gues, Emmanuelle Autret, Jonathan Baker, Clément Bricaud, Romain Bourdalle-Badie, Lluis Castrillo, Lijing Cheng, Frederic Chevallier, Daniele Ciani, Alvaro de Pascual-Collar, Vincenzo De Toma, Marie Drevillon, Claudia Fanelli, Gilles Garric, Marion Gehlen, Rianne Giesen, Kevin Hodges, Doroteaciro Iovino, Simon Jandt-Scheelke, Eric Jansen, Melanie Juza, Ioanna Karagali, Thomas Lavergne, Simona Masina, Ronan McAdam, Audrey Minière, Helen Morrison, Tabea Rebekka Panteleit, Andrea Pisano, Marie-Isabelle Pujol, Ad Stoffelen, Sulian Thual, Simon Van Gennip, Pierre Veillard, Chunxue Yang, and Hao Zuo
State Planet, 4-osr8, 1, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-1-2024, 2024
Karina von Schuckmann, Lorena Moreira, Mathilde Cancet, Flora Gues, Emmanuelle Autret, Ali Aydogdu, Lluis Castrillo, Daniele Ciani, Andrea Cipollone, Emanuela Clementi, Gianpiero Cossarini, Alvaro de Pascual-Collar, Vincenzo De Toma, Marion Gehlen, Rianne Giesen, Marie Drevillon, Claudia Fanelli, Kevin Hodges, Simon Jandt-Scheelke, Eric Jansen, Melanie Juza, Ioanna Karagali, Priidik Lagemaa, Vidar Lien, Leonardo Lima, Vladyslav Lyubartsev, Ilja Maljutenko, Simona Masina, Ronan McAdam, Pietro Miraglio, Helen Morrison, Tabea Rebekka Panteleit, Andrea Pisano, Marie-Isabelle Pujol, Urmas Raudsepp, Roshin Raj, Ad Stoffelen, Simon Van Gennip, Pierre Veillard, and Chunxue Yang
State Planet, 4-osr8, 2, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-2-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-2-2024, 2024
Jérôme Neirynck, Jonas Van de Walle, Ruben Borgers, Sebastiaan Jamaer, Johan Meyers, Ad Stoffelen, and Nicole P. M. van Lipzig
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1695–1711, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1695-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1695-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In our study, we assess how mesoscale weather systems influence wind speed variations and their impact on offshore wind energy production fluctuations. We have observed, for instance, that weather systems originating over land lead to sea wind speed variations. Additionally, we noted that power fluctuations are typically more significant in summer, despite potentially larger winter wind speed variations. These findings are valuable for grid management and optimizing renewable energy deployment.
Sara Porchetta, Michael F. Howland, Ruben Borgers, Sophia Buckingham, and Wim Munters
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-58, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-58, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study delves into how hourly and monthly variations of wakes of a newly constructed wind farm cluster impacts adjacent existing farms. Using a simulation of a full year, it compares results from both a numerical weather prediction model and different fast-running engineering models. The results reveal significant differences in wake predictions, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Such insights are important for making informed decisions for the siting and design of future wind turbines.
Rosa Pietroiusti, Inne Vanderkelen, Friederike E. L. Otto, Clair Barnes, Lucy Temple, Mary Akurut, Philippe Bally, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, and Wim Thiery
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 225–264, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-225-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-225-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Heavy rainfall in eastern Africa between late 2019 and mid 2020 caused devastating floods and landslides and drove the levels of Lake Victoria to a record-breaking maximum in May 2020. In this study, we characterize the spatial extent and impacts of the floods in the Lake Victoria basin and investigate how human-induced climate change influenced the probability and intensity of the record-breaking lake levels and flooding by applying a multi-model extreme event attribution methodology.
Nick Janssens and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 65–95, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-65-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-65-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Proper wind farm control may vastly contribute to Europe's plan to go carbon neutral. However, current strategies don't account for turbine–wake interactions affecting power extraction. High-fidelity models (e.g., LES) are needed to accurately model this but are considered too slow in practice. By coarsening the resolution, we were able to design an efficient LES-based controller with real-time potential. This may allow us to bridge the gap towards practical wind farm control in the near future.
Zhen Li, Ad Stoffelen, Anton Verhoef, Zhixiong Wang, Jian Shang, and Honggang Yin
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4769–4783, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4769-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4769-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
WindRAD (Wind Radar) is the first dual-frequency rotating fan-beam scatterometer in orbit. We observe non-linearity in the backscatter distribution. Therefore, higher-order calibration (HOC) is proposed, which removes the non-linearities per incidence angle. The combination of HOC and NOCant is discussed. It can remove not only the non-linearity but also the anomalous harmonic azimuth dependencies caused by the antenna rotation; hence the optimal winds can be achieved with this combination.
Hugues Goosse, Sofia Allende Contador, Cecilia M. Bitz, Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Clare Eayrs, Thierry Fichefet, Kenza Himmich, Pierre-Vincent Huot, François Klein, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Bianca Mezzina, Charles Pelletier, Lettie Roach, Martin Vancoppenolle, and Nicole P. M. van Lipzig
The Cryosphere, 17, 407–425, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-407-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-407-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Using idealized sensitivity experiments with a regional atmosphere–ocean–sea ice model, we show that sea ice advance is constrained by initial conditions in March and the retreat season is influenced by the magnitude of several physical processes, in particular by the ice–albedo feedback and ice transport. Atmospheric feedbacks amplify the response of the winter ice extent to perturbations, while some negative feedbacks related to heat conduction fluxes act on the ice volume.
Ishaan Sood, Elliot Simon, Athanasios Vitsas, Bart Blockmans, Gunner C. Larsen, and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2469–2489, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2469-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2469-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we conduct a validation study to compare a numerical solver against measurements obtained from the offshore Lillgrund wind farm. By reusing a previously developed inflow turbulent dataset, the atmospheric conditions at the wind farm were recreated, and the general performance trends of the turbines were captured well. The work increases the reliability of numerical wind farm solvers while highlighting the challenges of accurately representing large wind farms using such solvers.
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.
Johan Meyers, Carlo Bottasso, Katherine Dykes, Paul Fleming, Pieter Gebraad, Gregor Giebel, Tuhfe Göçmen, and Jan-Willem van Wingerden
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2271–2306, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2271-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2271-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art and the outstanding challenges in wind farm flow control, thus identifying the key research areas that could further enable commercial uptake and success. To this end, we have structured the discussion on challenges and opportunities into four main areas: (1) insight into control flow physics, (2) algorithms and AI, (3) validation and industry implementation, and (4) integrating control with system design
(co-design).
Konstanze Kölle, Tuhfe Göçmen, Irene Eguinoa, Leonardo Andrés Alcayaga Román, Maria Aparicio-Sanchez, Ju Feng, Johan Meyers, Vasilis Pettas, and Ishaan Sood
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2181–2200, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2181-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2181-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The paper studies wind farm flow control (WFFC) in simulations with variable electricity prices. The results indicate that considering the electricity price in the operational strategy can be beneficial with respect to the gained income compared to focusing on the power gain only. Moreover, revenue maximization by balancing power production and structural load reduction is demonstrated at the example of a single wind turbine.
Tuhfe Göçmen, Filippo Campagnolo, Thomas Duc, Irene Eguinoa, Søren Juhl Andersen, Vlaho Petrović, Lejla Imširović, Robert Braunbehrens, Jaime Liew, Mads Baungaard, Maarten Paul van der Laan, Guowei Qian, Maria Aparicio-Sanchez, Rubén González-Lope, Vinit V. Dighe, Marcus Becker, Maarten J. van den Broek, Jan-Willem van Wingerden, Adam Stock, Matthew Cole, Renzo Ruisi, Ervin Bossanyi, Niklas Requate, Simon Strnad, Jonas Schmidt, Lukas Vollmer, Ishaan Sood, and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1791–1825, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1791-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1791-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The FarmConners benchmark is the first of its kind to bring a wide variety of data sets, control settings, and model complexities for the (initial) assessment of wind farm flow control benefits. Here we present the first part of the benchmark results for three blind tests with large-scale rotors and 11 participating models in total, via direct power comparisons at the turbines as well as the observed or estimated power gain at the wind farm level under wake steering control strategy.
Haichen Zuo, Charlotte Bay Hasager, Ioanna Karagali, Ad Stoffelen, Gert-Jan Marseille, and Jos de Kloe
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4107–4124, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4107-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4107-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Aeolus satellite was launched in 2018 for global wind profile measurement. After successful operation, the error characteristics of Aeolus wind products have not yet been studied over Australia. To complement earlier validation studies, we evaluated the Aeolus Level-2B11 wind product over Australia with ground-based wind profiling radar measurements and numerical weather prediction model equivalents. The results show that the Aeolus can detect winds with sufficient accuracy over Australia.
Koen Devesse, Luca Lanzilao, Sebastiaan Jamaer, Nicole van Lipzig, and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1367–1382, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1367-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1367-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Recent research suggests that offshore wind farms might form such a large obstacle to the wind that it already decelerates before reaching the first turbines. Part of this phenomenon could be explained by gravity waves. Research on these gravity waves triggered by mountains and hills has found that variations in the atmospheric state with altitude can have a large effect on how they behave. This paper is the first to take the impact of those vertical variations into account for wind farms.
Thomas Haas, Jochem De Schutter, Moritz Diehl, and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1093–1135, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1093-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1093-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we study parks of large-scale airborne wind energy systems using a virtual flight simulator. The virtual flight simulator combines numerical techniques from flow simulation and kite control. Using advanced control algorithms, the systems can operate efficiently in the park despite turbulent flow conditions. For the three configurations considered in the study, we observe significant wake effects, reducing the power yield of the parks.
Boming Liu, Jianping Guo, Wei Gong, Yong Zhang, Lijuan Shi, Yingying Ma, Jian Li, Xiaoran Guo, Ad Stoffelen, Gerrit de Leeuw, and Xiaofeng Xu
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2022-26, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2022-26, 2022
Publication in AMT not foreseen
Short summary
Short summary
Aeolus is the first satellite mission to directly observe wind profile information on a global scale. However, Aeolus wind products over China were thus far not evaluated by in-situ comparison. This work is the comparison of wind speed on a large scale between the Aeolus, ERA5 and RS , shedding important light on the data application of Aeolus wind products.
Charles Pelletier, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, Samuel Helsen, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Christoph Kittel, François Klein, Sébastien Le clec'h, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Pierre Mathiot, Ehsan Moravveji, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Niels Souverijns, Guillian Van Achter, Sam Vanden Broucke, Alexander Vanhulle, Deborah Verfaillie, and Lars Zipf
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 553–594, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present PARASO, a circumpolar model for simulating the Antarctic climate. PARASO features five distinct models, each covering different Earth system subcomponents (ice sheet, atmosphere, land, sea ice, ocean). In this technical article, we describe how this tool has been developed, with a focus on the
coupling interfacesrepresenting the feedbacks between the distinct models used for contribution. PARASO is stable and ready to use but is still characterized by significant biases.
Marcus Reckermann, Anders Omstedt, Tarmo Soomere, Juris Aigars, Naveed Akhtar, Magdalena Bełdowska, Jacek Bełdowski, Tom Cronin, Michał Czub, Margit Eero, Kari Petri Hyytiäinen, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Anders Kiessling, Erik Kjellström, Karol Kuliński, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Michelle McCrackin, H. E. Markus Meier, Sonja Oberbeckmann, Kevin Parnell, Cristian Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Anneli Poska, Jarkko Saarinen, Beata Szymczycha, Emma Undeman, Anders Wörman, and Eduardo Zorita
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1–80, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
As part of the Baltic Earth Assessment Reports (BEAR), we present an inventory and discussion of different human-induced factors and processes affecting the environment of the Baltic Sea region and their interrelations. Some are naturally occurring and modified by human activities, others are completely human-induced, and they are all interrelated to different degrees. The findings from this study can largely be transferred to other comparable marginal and coastal seas in the world.
Xingou Xu and Ad Stoffelen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 7435–7451, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7435-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7435-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The support vector machine can effectively represent the increasing effect of rain affecting wind speeds. This research provides a correction of deviations that are skew- to Gaussian-like features caused by rain in Ku-band scatterometer wind. It demonstrates the effectiveness of a machine learning method when used based on elaborate analysis of the model establishment and result validation procedures. The corrected winds provide information previously lacking, which is vital for nowcasting.
Jianping Guo, Jian Zhang, Kun Yang, Hong Liao, Shaodong Zhang, Kaiming Huang, Yanmin Lv, Jia Shao, Tao Yu, Bing Tong, Jian Li, Tianning Su, Steve H. L. Yim, Ad Stoffelen, Panmao Zhai, and Xiaofeng Xu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 17079–17097, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17079-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-17079-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The planetary boundary layer (PBL) is the lowest part of the troposphere, and boundary layer height (BLH) is the depth of the PBL and is of critical importance to the dispersion of air pollution. The study presents the first near-global BLH climatology by using high-resolution (5-10 m) radiosonde measurements. The variations in BLH exhibit large spatial and temporal dependence, with a peak at 17:00 local solar time. The most promising reanalysis product is ERA-5 in terms of modeling BLH.
Ruth Mottram, Nicolaj Hansen, Christoph Kittel, J. Melchior van Wessem, Cécile Agosta, Charles Amory, Fredrik Boberg, Willem Jan van de Berg, Xavier Fettweis, Alexandra Gossart, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, Erik van Meijgaard, Andrew Orr, Tony Phillips, Stuart Webster, Sebastian B. Simonsen, and Niels Souverijns
The Cryosphere, 15, 3751–3784, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3751-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3751-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We compare the calculated surface mass budget (SMB) of Antarctica in five different regional climate models. On average ~ 2000 Gt of snow accumulates annually, but different models vary by ~ 10 %, a difference equivalent to ± 0.5 mm of global sea level rise. All models reproduce observed weather, but there are large differences in regional patterns of snowfall, especially in areas with very few observations, giving greater uncertainty in Antarctic mass budget than previously identified.
Silje Lund Sørland, Roman Brogli, Praveen Kumar Pothapakula, Emmanuele Russo, Jonas Van de Walle, Bodo Ahrens, Ivonne Anders, Edoardo Bucchignani, Edouard L. Davin, Marie-Estelle Demory, Alessandro Dosio, Hendrik Feldmann, Barbara Früh, Beate Geyer, Klaus Keuler, Donghyun Lee, Delei Li, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, Seung-Ki Min, Hans-Jürgen Panitz, Burkhardt Rockel, Christoph Schär, Christian Steger, and Wim Thiery
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5125–5154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5125-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5125-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We review the contribution from the CLM-Community to regional climate projections following the CORDEX framework over Europe, South Asia, East Asia, Australasia, and Africa. How the model configuration, horizontal and vertical resolutions, and choice of driving data influence the model results for the five domains is assessed, with the purpose of aiding the planning and design of regional climate simulations in the future.
Jianping Guo, Boming Liu, Wei Gong, Lijuan Shi, Yong Zhang, Yingying Ma, Jian Zhang, Tianmeng Chen, Kaixu Bai, Ad Stoffelen, Gerrit de Leeuw, and Xiaofeng Xu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2945–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2945-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2945-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Vertical wind profiles are crucial to a wide range of atmospheric disciplines. Aeolus is the first satellite mission to directly observe wind profile information on a global scale. However, Aeolus wind products over China have thus far not been evaluated by in situ comparison. This work is expected to let the public and science community better know the Aeolus wind products and to encourage use of these valuable data in future research and applications.
Boming Liu, Jianping Guo, Wei Gong, Yong Zhang, Lijuan Shi, Yingying Ma, Jian Li, Xiaoran Guo, Ad Stoffelen, Gerrit de Leeuw, and Xiaofeng Xu
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-41, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-41, 2021
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Vertical wind profiles are crucial to a wide range of atmospheric disciplines. Aeolus is the first satellite mission to directly observe wind profile information on a global scale. However, Aeolus wind products over China were thus far not evaluated by in-situ comparison. This work is expected to let the public and science community better know the Aeolus wind products and to encourage use of these valuable data in future researches and applications.
Luca Lanzilao and Johan Meyers
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 247–271, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-247-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-247-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This research paper investigates the potential of thrust set-point optimization in large wind farms for mitigating gravity-wave-induced blockage effects for the first time, with the aim of increasing the wind-farm energy extraction. The optimization tool is applied to almost 2000 different atmospheric states. Overall, power gains above 4 % are observed for 77 % of the cases.
Cited articles
Akhtar, N. and Chatterjee, F.: Wind farm parametrization in COSMO5.0_clm15, World Data Center for Climate (WDCC) at DKRZ, https://doi.org/10.35089/WDCC/WindFarmPCOSMO5.0clm15, 2020. a
Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., and Schrum, C.: Impacts of accelerating deployment of offshore windfarms on near-surface climate, Sci. Rep., 12, 18307, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22868-9, 2022. a
Antonini, E. G. and Caldeira, K.: Spatial constraints in large-scale expansion of wind power plants, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2103875118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103875118, 2021. a, b
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
Bak, C., Zahle, F., Bitsche, R., Kim, T., Yde, A., Henriksen, L. C., Hansen, M. H., Blasques, J. P. A. A., Gaunaa, M., and Natarajan, A.: The DTU 10-MW reference wind turbine, in: Danish wind power research 2013, https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/the-dtu-10-mw-reference-wind-turbine (last access: 6 May 2022), 2013. a
Bento, N. and Fontes, M.: Emergence of floating offshore wind energy: Technology and industry, Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev., 99, 66–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.035, 2019. a
Borgers, R.: Mesoscale modelling of North Sea wind resources with COSMO-CLM: model evaluation and impact assessment of future wind farm characteristics on cluster-scale wake losses, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8348700, 2023. a
Borrmann, R., Knud, R., Wallasch, A.-K., and Lüers, S.: Capacity densities of European offshore wind farms, Tech. rep., no. SP18004A1, Deutsche WindGuard GmbH, Varel, Germany, https://vasab.org/document/capacity-densities-of-european-offshore-wind-farms/ (last access: 2 February 2022), 2018. a, b, c
Bourassa, M. A., Meissner, T., Cerovecki, I., Chang, P. S., Dong, X., De Chiara, G., Donlon, C., Dukhovskoy, D. S., Elya, J., Fore, A., et al.: Remotely sensed winds and wind stresses for marine forecasting and ocean modeling, Front. Mar. Sci., 6, 443, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00443, 2019. a
Brisson, E., Demuzere, M., and Van Lipzig, N.: Modelling strategies for performing convection-permitting climate simulations, Meteorol. Z., 25, 149–163, https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2015/0598, 2015. a
Cañadillas, B., Foreman, R., Barth, V., Siedersleben, S., Lampert, A., Platis, A., Djath, B., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Bange, J., Emeis, S., and Neumann, T.: Offshore wind farm wake recovery: Airborne measurements and its representation in engineering models, Wind Energy, 23, 1249–1265, 2020. a
Chatterjee, F., Allaerts, D., Blahak, U., Meyers, J., and van Lipzig, N.: Evaluation of a wind-farm parametrization in a regional climate model using large eddy simulations, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 142, 3152–3161, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2896, 2016. a, b, c, d
Copernicus Marine Service: Global Ocean Daily Gridded Reprocessed L3 Sea Surface Winds from Scatterometer, Copernicus Marine Service [data set], https://doi.org/10.48670/moi-00183, 2022. a
Coquilla, R. V., Obermeier, J., and White, B. R.: Calibration procedures and uncertainty in wind power anemometers, Wind Eng., 31, 303–316, https://doi.org/10.1260/030952407783418720, 2007. a
Das Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie: FINO database, http://fino.bsh.de/ (last access: 10 January 2022), 2022. a
Dhirendra, D.: Uncertainty Assessment Fugro OCEANOR SEAWATCH Wind LiDAR Buoy at RWE Meteomast IJmuiden, Tech. rep., ECOFYS, https://offshorewind.rvo.nl/file/download/45051422 (last access: 15 February 2022), 2014. a
Dirksen, M., Wijnant, I., Siebesma, P., Baas, P., and Natalie, T.: Validation of wind farm parameterisation in Weather Forecast Model HARMONIE-AROME – Analysis of 2019, Tech. rep., WINS50 report, TU Delft, https://www.wins50.nl/downloads/dirksen_etal_validationreport.pdf (last access: 1 September 2022), 2022. a, b, c, d, e, f
Doms, G. and Baldauf, M.: A description of the nonhydrostatic regional COSMO-Model Part I: dynamics and numerics, Tech. rep., COSMO documentation, Deutscher Wetterdienst, https://doi.org/10.5676/DWD_pub/nwv/cosmo-doc_5.00_I, 2013. a, b
Doms, G., Förstner, J., Heise, E., Herzog, H.-J., Mironov, D., Raschendorfer, M., Reinhardt, T., Ritter, B., Schrodin, R., Schulz, J.-P., and Vogel, P.: A description of the nonhydrostatic regional COSMO-Model Part II: physical parametrization, Tech. rep., COSMO documentation, Deutscher Wetterdienst, https://doi.org/10.5676/DWD_pub/nwv/cosmo-doc_5.00_II, 2013. a
Duncan, J., Wijnant, I., and Knoop, S.: DOWA validation against offshore mast and LiDAR measurements, Tech. rep., TNO report 2019 R10062, KNMI – Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, https://www.dutchoffshorewindatlas.nl/binaries/dowa/ (last access: 1 September 2021), 2019. a
Figa-Saldaña, J., Wilson, J. J., Attema, E., Gelsthorpe, R., Drinkwater, M. R., and Stoffelen, A.: The advanced scatterometer (ASCAT) on the meteorological operational (MetOp) platform: A follow on for European wind scatterometers, Can. J. Remote Sens., 28, 404–412, https://doi.org/10.5589/m02-035, 2002. a
Fischereit, J., Brown, R., Larsén, X. G., Badger, J., and Hawkes, G.: Review of mesoscale wind-farm parametrizations and their applications, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 182, 175–224, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-021-00652-y, 2022a. a, b, c
Fischereit, J., Larsén, X. G., and Hahmann, A. N.: Climatic Impacts of Wind-Wave-Wake Interactions in Offshore Wind Farms, Front. Energ. Res., 10, 881459, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.881459, 2022b. a, b
Fischereit, J., Schaldemose Hansen, K., Larsén, X. G., van der Laan, M. P., Réthoré, P.-E., and Murcia Leon, J. P.: Comparing and validating intra-farm and farm-to-farm wakes across different mesoscale and high-resolution wake models, Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1069–1091, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022, 2022c. a, b, c
Fitch, A. C., Olson, J. B., Lundquist, J. K., Dudhia, J., Gupta, A. K., Michalakes, J., and Barstad, I.: Local and mesoscale impacts of wind farms as parameterized in a mesoscale NWP model, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, 3017–3038, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00352.1, 2012. a
Gaertner, E., Rinker, J., Sethuraman, L., Zahle, F., Anderson, B., Barter, G. E., Abbas, N. J., Meng, F., Bortolotti, P., Skrzypinski, W., Scott, G., Feil, R., Bredmose, H., Dykes, K., Shields, M., Allen, C., and Viselli, A.: IEA wind TCP task 37: definition of the IEA 15-megawatt offshore reference wind turbine, Tech. rep., no. NREL/TP-5000-75698, NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1603478, 2020. a
Garcia-Santiago, O. M., Badger, J., Hahmann, A. N., and da Costa, G. L.: Evaluation of two mesoscale wind farm parametrisations with offshore tall masts, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2265, 022038, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2265/2/022038, 2022. a
Gelsthorpe, R., Schied, E., and Wilson, J.: ASCAT-Metop's advanced scatterometer, ESA Bulletin, 102, 19–27, 2000. a
Geyer, B., Weisse, R., Bisling, P., and Winterfeldt, J.: Climatology of North Sea wind energy derived from a model hindcast for 1958–2012, J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodynam., 147, 18–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.09.005, 2015. a, b, c, d
Grachev, A. A., Andreas, E. L., Fairall, C. W., Guest, P. S., and Persson, P. O. G.: The critical Richardson number and limits of applicability of local similarity theory in the stable boundary layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 147, 51–82, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-012-9771-0, 2013. a
Gupta, T. and Baidya Roy, S.: Recovery processes in a large offshore wind farm, Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 1089–1106, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1089-2021, 2021. a
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, 2015. a
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, Al., 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. Soci., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
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.: ERA5 monthly averaged data on single levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47, 2022. a
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, in: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Shukla, P., Skea, J., Slade, R., Khourdajie, A. A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., and Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001, 2022. a
Jonkman, J., Butterfield, S., Musial, W., and Scott, G.: Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development, Tech. rep., no. NREL/TP-500-38060, NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/947422, 2009. a
Knoop, S., Bosveld, F. C., de Haij, M. J., and Apituley, A.: A 2-year intercomparison of continuous-wave focusing wind lidar and tall mast wind measurements at Cabauw, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 2219–2235, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2219-2021, 2021. a
Komusanac, I., Brindley, G., Fraile, D., and Ramirez, L.: Wind energy in Europe: 2020 Statistics and the outlook for 2021–2025, Tech. rep., WindEurope, Brussels, Belgium, https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/wind-energy-in-europe-2020-statistics-and-the-outlook-for-2021 (last access: 10 January 2022), 2020. a
Komusanac, I., Brindley, G., Fraile, D., and Ramirez, L.: Wind energy in Europe: 2021 Statistics and the outlook for 2022–2026, Tech. rep., WindEurope, Brussels, Belgium, https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/wind-energy-in-europe-2021-statistics-and-the-outlook-for-2022 (last access: 10 January 2022), 2021. a, b
Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut: KNMI data platform, https://dataplatform.knmi.nl/group/wind (last access: 25 February 2022), 2022. a
Larsén, X. G. and Fischereit, J.: A case study of wind farm effects using two wake parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (V3. 7.1) in the presence of low-level jets, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3141–3158, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021, 2021. a
Leiding, T., Tinz, B., Gates, L., Rosenhagen, G., Herklotz, K., and Senet, C.: Standardisierung und vergleichende Analyse der meteorologischen FINO-Messdaten (FINO123): Forschungsvorhaben FINO-Wind: Abschlussbericht: 12/2012–04/2016, Deutscher Wetterdienst, https://www.dwd.de/DE/klimaumwelt/klimaforschung/klimaueberwachung/finowind/finodoku/abschlussbericht_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (last access: 1 October 2021), 2016. a, b
Li, D., Geyer, B., and Bisling, P.: A model-based climatology analysis of wind power resources at 100-m height over the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea, Appl. Energy, 179, 575–589, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.010, 2016. a
Lu, H. and Porté-Agel, F.: On the impact of wind farms on a convective atmospheric boundary layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 157, 81–96, 2015. 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, Nat. Energy, 4, 26–34, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0281-2, 2019. a
Matte, D., Laprise, R., Thériault, J. M., and Lucas-Picher, P.: Spatial spin-up of fine scales in a regional climate model simulation driven by low-resolution boundary conditions, Clim. Dynam., 49, 563–574, 2017. a
Matthijsen, J., Dammers, E., and Elzenga, H.: De toekomst van de Noordzee: de Noordzee in 2030 en 2050: een scenariostudie, Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2018-toekomst-van-de-noordzee-2728.pdf (last access: 1 July 2021), 2018. a
Meetnet Vlaamse Banken: Data of the Flemish Banks Monitoring Network, https://meetnetvlaamsebanken.be/Download/Welcome (last access: 25 February 2022), 2022. a
Mellor, G. L. and Yamada, T.: Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems, Rev. Geophys., 20, 851–875, https://doi.org/10.1029/RG020i004p00851, 1982. a
Menezes, D., Mendes, M., Almeida, J. A., and Farinha, T.: Wind farm and resource datasets: A comprehensive survey and overview, Energies, 13, 4702, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13184702, 2020. a
Meyers, J. and Meneveau, C.: Optimal turbine spacing in fully developed wind farm boundary layers, Wind Energy, 15, 305–317, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.469, 2012. a, b
Munters, W., Adiloglu, B., Buckingham, S., and van Beeck, J.: Wake impact of constructing a new offshore wind farm zone on an existing downwind cluster: a case study of the Belgian Princess Elisabeth zone using FLORIS, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2265, 022049, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2265/2/022049, 2022. a
Musial, W., Spitsen, P., Duffy, P., Beiter, P., Marquis, M., Hammond, R., and Shields, M.: Offshore Wind Market Report: 2022 Edition, Tech. rep., no. NREL/TP-5000-83544, NREL – National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1883382, 2022. a, b
Nederlandse Organisatie voor toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek: Nimbus, https://nimbus.windopzee.net/ (last access: 15 February 2022), 2022. a
Nolan, P., Lynch, P., and Sweeney, C.: Simulating the future wind energy resource of Ireland using the COSMO-CLM model, Wind Energy, 17, 19–37, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1554, 2014. 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, Sci. Rep., 8, 2163, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20389-y, 2018. a
Platis, A., Hundhausen, M., Lampert, A., Emeis, S., and Bange, J.: The role of atmospheric stability and turbulence in offshore wind-farm wakes in the German bight, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 182, 441–469, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-021-00668-4, 2021. a, b
Porté-Agel, F., Lu, H., and Wu, Y.-T.: Interaction between large wind farms and the atmospheric boundary layer, Procedia Iutam, 10, 307–318, 2014. a
Poveda, J. M. and Wouters, D. A. J.: Wind measurements at meteorological mast IJmuiden, Tech. rep., eCN-E–14-058, ECN, https://publicaties.ecn.nl/PdfFetch.aspx?nr=ECN-E--14-058 (last access: 19 January 2022), 2015. a
Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J., and Shepherd, T. J.: Wind power production from very large offshore wind farms, Joule, 5, 2663–2686, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.09.002, 2021. a
Rabin, J., Delon, J., and Gousseau, Y.: Circular Earth Mover's Distance for the comparison of local features, in: 2008 19th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 8–11 December 2008, Tampa, USA, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2008.4761372, 2008. a
Raschendorfer, M.: The new turbulence parameterization of LM, Tech. rep., COSMO newsletter, Deutscher Wetterdienst, http://www.cosmo-model.org/content/model/documentation/newsLetters/newsLetter01/newsLetter_01.pdf (last access: 22 May 2021), 2001. a
Reyers, M., Pinto, J. G., and Moemken, J.: Statistical–dynamical downscaling for wind energy potentials: evaluation and applications to decadal hindcasts and climate change projections, Int. J. Climatol., 35, 229–244, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3975, 2015. a
Reyers, M., Moemken, J., and Pinto, J. G.: Future changes of wind energy potentials over Europe in a large CMIP5 multi-model ensemble, Int. J. Climatol., 36, 783–796, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4382, 2016. a
Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland: Offshorewind RVO, https://offshorewind.rvo.nl/ (last access: 15 February 2022), 2022. a
Rockel, B., Will, A., and Hense, A.: The regional climate model COSMO-CLM (CCLM), Meteorol. Z., 17, 347–348, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2008/0309, 2008. a
Ronda, R., Wijnant, I., and Stepek, A.: Inter-annual wind speed variability on the North Sea, Tech. rep., TR-360, KNMI – Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, https://cdn.knmi.nl/knmi/pdf/bibliotheek/knmipubTR/TR360.pdf (last access: 5 April 2021), 2017. a
Santos, J., Rochinha, C., Liberato, M., Reyers, M., and Pinto, J.: Projected changes in wind energy potentials over Iberia, Renew. Energy, 75, 68–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.09.026, 2015. a
Sathe, A., Gryning, S.-E., and Peña, A.: Comparison of the atmospheric stability and wind profiles at two wind farm sites over a long marine fetch in the North Sea, Wind Energy, 14, 767–780, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.456, 2011. a
Schneemann, J., Rott, A., Dörenkämper, M., Steinfeld, G., and Kühn, M.: Cluster wakes impact on a far-distant offshore wind farm's power, Wind Energ. Sci., 5, 29–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-29-2020, 2020. a, b
Sheridan, L. M., Krishnamurthy, R., and Gaudet, B. J.: Assessment of model hub height wind speed performance using DOE lidar buoy data, Tech. rep., pNNL-30840, PNNL – Pacific Northwest National Lab., Richland, WA, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1779495, 2021. a
Shields, M., Beiter, P., Nunemaker, J., Cooperman, A., and Duffy, P.: Impacts of turbine and plant upsizing on the levelized cost of energy for offshore wind, Appl. Energy, 298, 117189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117189, 2021. a
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
Stevens, R. J., Gayme, D. F., and Meneveau, C.: Effects of turbine spacing on the power output of extended wind-farms, Wind Energy, 19, 359–370, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1835, 2016. a
Stull, R. B.: An introduction to boundary layer meteorology, in: vol. 13, Springer Science & Business Media, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3027-8, 1988. a
Tammelin, B., Vihma, T., Atlaskin, E., Badger, J., Fortelius, C., Gregow, H., Horttanainen, M., Hyvönen, R., Kilpinen, J., Latikka, J., Ljungberg, K., Mortensen, N. G., Niemelä, S., Ruosteenoja, K., Salonen, K., Suomi, I., and Venäläinen, A.: Production of the Finnish wind atlas, Wind Energy, 16, 19–35, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.517, 2013. a
The Crown Estate: Marine Data Exchange, https://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk (last access: 22 March 2022), 2022. a
Tiedtke, M.: A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in large-scale models, Monthly weather review, 117, 1779–1800, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<1779:ACMFSF>2.0.CO;2, 1989. a
van Stratum, B., Theeuwes, N., Barkmeijer, J., van Ulft, B., and Wijnant, I.: A One-Year-Long Evaluation of a Wind-Farm Parameterization in HARMONIE-AROME, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 14, e2021MS002947, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002947, 2022. a, b, c
Vergara-Temprado, J., Ban, N., Panosetti, D., Schlemmer, L., and Schär, C.: Climate models permit convection at much coarser resolutions than previously considered, J. Climate, 33, 1915–1933, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0286.1, 2020. a
Verhoef, A. and Stoffelen, A.: Validation of ASCAT 12.5-km winds, Tech. rep., reference: SAF/OSI/CDOP/KNMI/TEC/RP/147, https://knmi-scatterometer-website-prd.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/publications/validation_of_ascat_12.5km_winds_1.3.pdf (last access: 6 May 2021),, 2009. a
Verkaik, J.: Documentatie Windmetingen In Nederland (in Dutch), Tech. rep., KNMI – Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – klimatologische dienst, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266441846_Documentatie_Windmetingen_In_Nederland (last access: 6 June 2021), 2001. a
Vigin, L.: shapefiles of the Belgian and Dunkirk offshore zones, RBINS – Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science, https://www.bmdc.be/NODC/index.xhtml (last access: 19 January 2022), 2022. a
Volker, P. J., Hahmann, A. N., Badger, J., and Jørgensen, H. E.: Prospects for generating electricity by large onshore and offshore wind farms, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 034022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5d86, 2017. a, b, c
Werkhoven, E. and Verhoef, J.: Offshore Meteorological Mast IJmuiden – Abstract of Instrumentation Report, Tech. rep., ECN-Wind Memo-12-010, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation of The Netherlands, https://offshorewind-measurements.tno.nl/ (last access: 26 March 2022), 2012. a
Westerhellweg, A., Neumann, T., and Riedel, V.: FINO1 mast correction, Vol. 21, DEWI-Magazin, 2012. a
Wijnant, I., van den Brink, H., and Stepek, A.: North Sea wind climatology Part 1: a review of existing wind atlases, Tech. rep., technical report TR-342, KNMI – Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, https://cdn.knmi.nl/knmi/pdf/bibliotheek/knmipubTR/TR342.pdf (last access: 30 March 2021), 2014. a
Wouters, D. and Verhoef, J.: Verification of Leosphere Windcube WLS7-577 at ECN part of TNO LiDAR Calibration Facility, for offshore measurements at Lichteiland Goeree, Tech. rep., TNO 2019 R10398, ECN, https://offshorewind-measurements.tno.nl/ (last access: 21 May 2021), 2019a. a
Wouters, D. and Verhoef, J.: Verification of ZephIR 300 unit 315 at ECN part of TNO LiDAR Calibration Facility, for offshore measurements at Euro Platform, Tech. rep., TNO 2018 R10762, ECN, https://offshorewind-measurements.tno.nl/ (last access: 21 May 2021), 2019b. a
Wouters, D. and Verhoef, J.: Verification of ZephIR 300 unit 563 at ECN part of TNO LiDAR Calibration Facility, for offshore measurements at K13-A production platform, Tech. rep., TNO 2018 R10850, ECN, https://offshorewind-measurements.tno.nl/ (last access: 21 May 2021), 2019c. a
Short summary
Wind farms at sea are becoming more densely clustered, which means that next to individual wind turbines interfering with each other in a single wind farm also interference between wind farms becomes important. Using a climate model, this study shows that the efficiency of wind farm clusters and the interference between the wind farms in the cluster depend strongly on the properties of the individual wind farms and are also highly sensitive to the spacing between the wind farms.
Wind farms at sea are becoming more densely clustered, which means that next to individual wind...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint