the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Risk Assessment for Offshore Wind Energy Sites
Abstract. A feasibility assessment of offshore wind in the Gulf of Mexico conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that hurricane risk was one of the major challenges that would need to be overcome for a mature offshore wind industry to develop in the Gulf of Mexico as the hurricanes that frequent this area can potentially exceed design limits prescribed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) wind design standards. To better understand and account for these unique conditions, we target two objectives. The first was to develop a translation between the well-established Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale and the IEC design classes, which are based upon different averaging periods and reference heights and often lead to misinterpretation, speculation, and uncertainty. The conversion of wind speed averaging times between Saffir-Simpson and IEC design standards reflects the behavior of the sea surface drag coefficient as a function of the mean wind speed, which controls the turbulence characteristics of the hurricane boundary layer near the surface. The second objective was to quantify the hurricane exposure risk for wind turbines at sites potentially impacted by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico using probabilistic hurricane track and wind field models. The IEC prescribes the reference wind speeds associated with Class 1A and Typhoon Class limit states to be 50 years, though model results indicate the return periods associated with the IEC Class 1A limit state range from approximately 20 to 45 years, while the return periods associated with the Typhoon Class limit-state range from approximately 40 to 110 years. Ultimately, this indicates the Class 1A limit state may be non-conservative for the entire Gulf of Mexico Offshore Wind Energy area, while the Typhoon Class limit-state may be adequate for the design of turbines in some regions of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Wind Energy area.
- Preprint
(2509 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Feb 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-123', James Nichols, 30 Oct 2024
reply
Given the focus in the US on the robustness check using the 500-year return 10-minute mean wind speed, the paper would be enhanced by including a plot of the 500-year return wind speed since it is expected that this may become design driving for the support structure and can vary more widely than the 50-year return value.Â
Disclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-123-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-123', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Nov 2024
reply
- Introduction is lacking proper literature review. Research on wind turbines affected by hurricanes should be included. Also, the authors should describe at least one incidence of wind turbines being affected by strong hurricane winds.
- IEC is defined in Section 2, but abbreviation is already used in Section 1.
- What is the source of data in Figure 1? Where are those measurements coming from?
- Line 110. Please expand more on this argument of obtaining good results for wrong reasons.
- Line 114. What does RMW stand for?
- There is no need to specifically have Section 2.2.1. That material can be part of Section 2.2. without adding new subsection.
- Figure 4. Either the name of this island or the coordinates are needed.
- In Table 1, what is wind speed in the first column? Is that range related to 1-minute average wind speed or 3-second gusts? Based on discussion after Table 1, it seems these values are neither of the above. Please clarify.
- Line 199. What is gust duration for this 72 m/s wind speed? Is that a 3-s gust?
- Definitions around Line 220. What is the gust duration in these definitions and how would that be affected by having anemometers of different acquisition frequencies?
- Figure 11 is of very low quality. Labels and numbers are not readable even at a zoom level above 100%.
- Equation 12. Functions, such as exp, should not be italic. Only mathematical symbols should be italic.
- Resolution of other figures should also be improved.
- Sections 3.2 and 3.3 should be combined and given a more general name.
- Figures 12 and 13, what are the units of the color bar?
- The entire discussion about surface drag coefficients seems out of place because the second half of the study did not properly capitalize on it. It seems that this could have been two different manuscripts, one on the surface drag coefficient and another on hurricane risk assessment modelling. The present manuscript presents both but in an uncomplete way.
- Risk is defined as the product of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Nothing is said about vulnerability curves. Can the authors comment on this issue. For example, Bouchard and Romanic (2023; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-05843-z) proposed a vulnerability curve for wind turbines affected by tornadoes. Could this or similar vulnerability curves be used in your study?
- How can project developers and decision makers use the results of this study during planning and managing of offshore wind turbines in the Gulf of Mexico?
- Inconsistent referencing style in the reference section.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-123-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-123', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Feb 2025
reply
In this article authors have investigated the challenges in converting wind speeds between Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale and IEC design classes due to the differences in height and gust durations. Authors have also quantified the risk associated with hurricane wind for wind turbine in the Gulf of Mexico. The method used in the article is scientifically sound. The article can be accepted for publication after addressing the minor comments below:Â
1. Line 25: Any recent data or example scenario that can be included to back up "significant potential to exceed design limits" here?
2. Line 28: Please include some references to "the open literature"Â
3. Line 46: "the conversion is wind speed dependent". This sentence comes across as the conversion is only dependent on wind speed. Although mentioned later, it would be good to iterate here as well that the conversion also depends on turbulence characteristics
4. Figure 1: What is the source of these data points? Powell et al. (2003)? Would be good to mention in the figure caption. Also, are these two examples coming from two locations?
5. Line 80: Could you please provide more explanation based on Figure 2? What is the most important take from this figure?
6. Figures 8-10: Looks like X-axis values are missing.Â
7. Figure 11: Hard to read. Needs re-formatting.Â
8. Line 334: What are the limitations of this model?
9. Line 429: What is the basis of 500,000-year simulation?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-123-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
215 | 96 | 60 | 371 | 12 | 12 |
- HTML: 215
- PDF: 96
- XML: 60
- Total: 371
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1