the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Enhancing minute-scale lidar-based power forecasts of offshore wind farms towards an operational use
Abstract. Minute-scale power forecasts are gaining importance to support the integration of volatile wind power in particular for offshore wind farms with geographical concentration of generation capacity. Lidar-based approaches have proven useful as an alternative to statistical methods, however, their forecast horizon needs to be extended from currently 5 minutes to at least 15 minutes to be useful for end-users. In this work, we utilize data from an extensive offshore measurement campaign and adapt a lidar-based forecasting approach, e.g. to include wind profile and lidar inclination measurements for improved tilt correction and vertical extrapolation of wind speed, to forecast wind speed and power with horizons of up to 30 minutes. We evaluate individual turbine wind speed and power forecasts and compare them against the benchmark persistence. Further, the impact of forecast characteristics on the forecast skill are analysed. Our results revealed the lidar-based forecast's ability to outperform persistence up to a 16 minute forecast horizon during unstable conditions. An increased wind vector age and propagation duration was found to reduce the forecast skill. Wind farm power forecasts are analysed neglecting large propagation durations, which increased the forecast skill and forecast horizon for which persistence was outperformed. We discuss the applied wind speed extrapolation approaches, the impact of lidar trajectories and wind vector propagation on forecast skill and the value of lidar-based minute-scale power forecast for end-users. In conclusion, the skill of the lidar-based approach highly depends on atmospheric conditions and the forecast characteristics. When considering this for its operational use, the lidar-based forecast has the potential to improve wind farm power forecasts for relevant forecast horizons.
- Preprint
(1553 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- CC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-141', Elliot Simon, 24 Jan 2025
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-141', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-141', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Aug 2026
Review: Theuer et al.: Enhancing minute-scale lidar-based power forecasts of offshore wind farms towards an operational use
General:
The study uses data from a dedicated measurement campaign at the offshore wind farm Nordergründe to evaluate an extension of the lidar-based forecasting approach proposed by Theuer et al. (2021). The main objective is to increase forecast horizons from approximately 5 minutes to up to 30 minutes and assess the resulting forecast skill.
However, several points should be addressed before publication:
The influence of lidar measurement geometry is discussed repeatedly throughout the manuscript and is proposed to be important for the forecast skill and bias. However, these relationships are not explicitly demonstrated in the results. I encourage the authors to quantify the effect of measurement geometry, for example by analysing forecast skill as a function of parameters related to the measurement geometry.
Based on Figure 2, I suggest making a map of the forecast skill as seen in for instance Figure 9 transformed into spatial locations, i.e. does the forecast skill depend on where in space the measurement comes from?
Forecast skill is extensively analysed as a function of stability, but not wind direction. Given the coastal site characteristics, I would like to see such an analysis taking both stability and wind direction into account.
Generally, I would like to be able to understand the figures by just looking at them and reading the figure labels, so please provide more description in the figure labels of the variables used in the figures.
The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes operational use (electricity trading, system operation, end-users), but no quantitative assessment of operational or economic value is provided. Please moderate these claims or provide supporting evidence.
Specific comments:
Lines 73-75: Please clarify the distinction between range-gate spacing and spatial resolution. The current description is difficult to follow.
Line 79: Please update the status of Paulsen et al. (2024) and please provide sufficient methodological detail in the manuscript for the convenience of the reader.
Line 88: Please provide additional information on the placement of the inclination sensors and discuss the potential influence of structural vibrations on the measurements. How well does these measurements reflect the lidar beam direction?
Line 92: Please define OSTIA at first use (Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Ice Analysis).
Lines 109-110: Please justify the chosen filtering thresholds (75°-105° and 50% scan availability). Were sensitivity studies performed?
Line 151: How frequently were stability-corrected logarithmic profiles used as a fallback due to missing profile-PPI measurements? Was there a tendency that this happened during specific meteorological situations?
Line 160: Equation (5)/(6) Consider adding a nomenclature table or schematic explaining the variables used in Equations (5) and (6). This could also be useful for a lot of other variables in the manuscript.
Line 186: Regarding the bias correction in Eq7, I wonder how the distribution of (Pobs(t + ktarg) − Ppc(t + ktarg)) -(Pobs(t) − Ppc(t)) look like and what the mean and std of it is. Please include these diagnostics.
Line 199: Typo “can then defined” should read “can then be defined”.
Line 220: Please explain what is meant by “The reference case does not account for differences in measurement height between consecutive wind speed forecasts.”
Line 235: Please define “NG” and other abbreviations when first introduced or even better omit the use of them. The manuscript contains many abbreviations and by the time NG appears, some readers may be tempted to interpret it as “Not Good” rather than Nordergründe.
Line 245: Could the exclusion of September 2022 to January 2023 introduce seasonal bias into the evaluation? Please also make the writing of dates, months and years clearer.
Line 253: Forecast availability decreases substantially with lead time. Please discuss the trade-off between forecast skill and forecast availability.
Line 278: The method is unable to outperform persistence under stable conditions. This limitation deserves further discussion.
Line 283: Could induction-zone or blockage effects contribute to the observed forecast bias? Please discuss.
Line 344: Figure 9 How does the forecast skill depend on turbine location within the wind farm (free stream versus waked turbines and how does the wind direction influence the results? I wonder if there is some influence from spatial location to time, i.e. if you based on spatial location show the performance, can you then see some trends in the result?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-141-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,071 | 306 | 53 | 1,430 | 80 | 106 |
- HTML: 1,071
- PDF: 306
- XML: 53
- Total: 1,430
- BibTeX: 80
- EndNote: 106
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Re: Line #38,
“To our knowledge, the only exceptions with forecast horizons beyond 5 minutes is a study by Würth (2022)..”
The authors should also be aware of the following works:
Includes a lidar based advection forecast method with horizon covering 0-45 minutes ahead.
Includes a lidar based forecast method with forecast horizons covering 0-60 minutes ahead (see for example page 110).