the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of wind farm parameterizations in the WRF model under different atmospheric stability conditions with high-resolution wake simulations
Andrea N. Hahmann
Jake Badger
Alfredo Peña
Abstract. Wind farm parameterizations (WFPs) are used in mesoscale models for predicting wind farm power production and its impact on wind resources while considering the variability of the regional wind climate. However, the performance of WFPs is influenced by various factors including atmospheric stability. In this study, we compared two widely used WFPs in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to large-eddy simulations (LES) of turbine wakes performed with the same model. The Fitch scheme and the Explicit Wake Parameterization were evaluated for their ability to represent wind speed and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) in a two-turbine wind farm layout under neutral, unstable, and stable atmospheric stability conditions. To ensure a fair comparison, the inflow conditions were kept as close as possible between the LES and mesoscale simulations for each type of stability condition, and the LES results were spatially aggregated to align with the mesoscale grid spacing. Our findings indicate that the performance of WFPs varies depending on the specific variable (wind speed or TKE) and the area of interest downwind of the turbine when compared to the LES reference. The WFPs can accurately depict the vertical profiles of the wind speed deficit for either the grid cell containing the wind turbines or the grid cells in the far wake, but not both simultaneously. The WFPs with an explicit source of TKE overestimate TKE values at the first grid cell containing the wind turbine; however, for downwind grid cells, agreement improves. On the other hand, WFPs without a TKE source underestimate TKE in all downwind grid cells. These agreement patterns between the WFPs and the LES reference are consistent under the three atmospheric stability conditions. However, the WFPs resemble less the wind speed and TKE from the LES reference under stable conditions than under neutral or unstable conditions.
- Preprint
(1779 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Oscar García-Santiago et al.
Status: open (until 08 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2023-124', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Nov 2023
reply
This work compares the performance of two wind farm parameterizations in WRF for their skills at wake representation versus a large-eddy simulation. The analysis is thorough, relevant, and considers single and multiple turbine layouts and each atmospheric stability regime. The paper is very well written with compelling figures. This work is recommended for publication after the following minor suggestions and corrections are addressed.
The results section would benefit from the addition of numerical values throughout to help the reader understand what the authors mean in statements such as “nearly negligible,” “larger errors,” “considerable differences,” and “best agreement.” A few sentences that would benefit from such numerical additions are explicitly stated below, but a comprehensive review of the manuscript in support of the addition of numerical findings is recommended.
In the discussion section, it would be of interest to tie the results to wind generation by employing the reference turbine’s power curve. For example, it would be interesting to see what the sensitivities in generation or capacity factor estimates over the analysis hours are relative to the sensitivities noted for each WFP, correction factor, and length scale.
Line 124: “stated” should be “state”
Line 133: Recommend adding some discussion as to why MYNN was selected as the PBL scheme for this analysis, along with speculation based on the literature on how an alternate scheme might impact your analysis and results.
Line 217: Suggest adding numerical values throughout this paragraph to help the reader understand what is meant by “significant differences” and “considerable differences”.
Line 259: Should the word “and” be removed from this line?
Line 308: “Fitch-0.25, Fitch-0.5, and Fitch-0.75 overestimate the added TKE by the turbines under all atmospheric conditions” By how much do they overestimate?
Line 318: “. Fitch-0.5 and Fitch-0.75 greatly overestimate the LES reference” Again, by how much?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-124-RC1
Oscar García-Santiago et al.
Oscar García-Santiago et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
16 | 7 | 0 | 23 | 1 | 1 |
- HTML: 16
- PDF: 7
- XML: 0
- Total: 23
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1