the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A New Gridded Offshore Wind Profile Product for US Coasts Using Machine Learning and Satellite Observations
Abstract. Offshore wind farms are a low-cost, efficient technology for green energy. They deliver significant economic benefits through their manufacturing and operation, and can be readily deployed at scale. Offshore wind also offers a route to opening up access to renewable energy for a global population, 40 % of whom live within 100 km of the coast. Presently, offshore wind speed data around wind turbine hub heights are fairly limited, available either through in situ observations from wind masts and floating Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) buoys at selected locations or as forecasting-model based output such as from the 2023 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) National Offshore Wind (NOW-23) and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Reanalysis v5 (ERA5). In situ wind profiles are very sparse and costly to obtain en masse, whereas satellite-derived 10 m wind speeds have vast coverage at high resolution. In this study, we show the improvement of deploying machine learning techniques, in particular random forest regression (RFR), over conventional methods for accurately estimating offshore wind speed profiles on a high-resolution (0.25°) grid at 6-hourly resolution from 1987 to 2022 using satellite-derived surface wind speeds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information’s (NCEI) Blended Seawinds version 2.0 (NBSv2.0) product. We use 276,577 wind profiles from five publicly available lidar datasets over the Northeast US and California coasts to train and validate a RFR model to extrapolate wind speed profiles up to 200 m. A single extrapolation model applicable to the coastal regions of the contiguous US and Hawai’i is developed, instead of site-specific ones attempted in previous studies.
Our RFR outperforms conventional extrapolation methods at the five training stations under cross validation (where each station is held out from the training once and used for validation), especially under conditions of high vertical wind shear and at wind turbine hub heights (~100 m). This model is then tested on two lidar stations that were not used in the training data and profiles from six NOW-23 station locations to evaluate its performance on unseen data. The final model is applied to the NBSv2.0 data from 1987–2022 to create publicly available wind speed profiles over the coastal regions of the contiguous US and Hawai’i on a 0.25° grid, which are shown to outperform NOW-23 and ERA-5 reanalysis at 100 m using a correlated triple collocation method over five years of matchup data (2015–2019). Gridded maps of wind profiles in the marine boundary layer over US coastal waters will enable the development of a suite of wind energy resources and will help stakeholders in their decision making related to wind-based renewable energy development.
- Preprint
(8027 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-77', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Aug 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', James Frech, 10 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-77', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Oct 2024
The paper demonstrates the use of random forest regression (RSR) to estimate wind speed profiles based on satellite 10m winds and ERA5 temperature data (SST and 2m). The work is novel and the comparison is quite extensive comparing with several independent sources. My main concern is that the authors compare their results to a neutral log profile and a power law profile with a fixed exponent. The neutral log law is used as the authors state that there is insufficient information to make the stability correction using a diabatic profile. This seems somewhat surprising. They are using ERA5 as an input to their RSR model which already uses delta T. This could equally be used along with wind speed to infer a bulk Richardson number which could be related to Obukhov length (L) and a formulation of the psi(z/L) function such as that by Businger and Dyer used to make the stability correction to the neutral log law. Indeed other parameters from ERA5 (e.g. sensible heat flux) could be used to get a more accurate estimate of surface stability. This would seem to be a much fairer comparison than using the neutral log law. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see a more detailed assessment of the accuracy of the RSR/log law/power law profile as a function of direction to see if the coastal transition plays a role in model accuracy. Finally, the results of the performance metrics for the floating lidar sites would be more readable as a table as was done for the ASOW sites.
Minor comments:
- The value of z0 for the log law extrapolation does not seem to have been mentioned (unless I miss it somewhere). Or was a Charnock relationship used?
- Units are missing in Table 4.
- On page 8, the word 'importances' is used several times. This sounds odd and I suggest that 'importance' is used as a collective noun.
- Line 522: change 'shown decrease' to 'show a decrease'
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-77-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', James Frech, 10 Dec 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2024-77', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Nov 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', James Frech, 10 Dec 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
432 | 126 | 23 | 581 | 15 | 14 |
- HTML: 432
- PDF: 126
- XML: 23
- Total: 581
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1