the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 Aug 2025
Brief communication: A new methodology for extreme value analysis in the wind industry
Abstract. In the wind industry, estimating extreme wind speeds over a 50-year period using one year of data presents challenges due to the limited representation of extreme events. This study proposes a methodology that combines measurements from Cabauw (The Netherlands) with the ASPIRE 100x100 m horizontal resolution large-eddy simulation. Using 20 years of Cabauw measurements as a reference, we compared four methods to estimate the 50-year wind speed (Vref ). The results show that combining ASPIRE with one year of measurements improves Vref estimates, matching the 20-year reference within 3 %. With these promising results, our aim is to apply this methodology to 12-month wind measurement campaigns from the wind industry.
- Preprint
(599 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-128/wes-2025-128-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/wes-2025-128-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2025
This study presents a method combining measurements with LES model of 45 storms to calculate the 50-year wind speed. This method shows closest estimate to the value obtained from measurements when compared to a few other methods.
The reviewer thinks that it is an interesting exercise, but the presentation, the method, the analysis are far from being rigorous as a journal publication. The reviewer recommends rejection to the draft in this current form, and the reasons are given below.
- The draft seems written and submitted in a hast. It is a Brief communication, but the sentences still need to be completed properly. E.g., what is “…a.o. wind industry standard” (line 15)? What do the authors think about the sentence like “20 years of Cabauw (reference) (line 59)” which was used in two places.
- The method itself. Even though the estimate is close to the value obtained from measurements, it is not clear how one-year information (“the simulation period encompasses the full year of 2002” and 45 selected…when storms pass”) is sufficient for estimating 50-year wind. The authors also stated this question themselves at the beginning of Introduction.
- The authors say “In the wind industry, 12-month wind measurement campaigns are standard for determining long-term wind climate…”. The reviewer doubts the validity of this statement, and therefore strongly suggests that the authors provide authorized references to this.
- The authors are very brief in explaining what have been done and what have been presented. The measurements are at 80 m, the ERA5 data at 100 m, what about the winds from the LES model? This puts question mark to the eventual results comparison. For method c) the authors wrote “the correction is done based on an offset and bias correction of the bulk of the data and an additional correction of the highest wind speed values” – this sounds like a secret recipe, difficult for the others to repeat.
- There are no discussions on uncertainties related to any of the methods.
- There are no references to other publications who have estimated the 50-year winds at the Cabauw site (e.g. Hansen, B. O., Larsén, X. G., Kelly, M. C., Rathmann, O. S., Berg, J., Bechmann, A., Ejsing Jørgensen, H. (2016). Extreme Wind Calculation Applying Spectral Correction Method – Test and Validation. DTU Wind Energy. (DTU Wind Energy E, Vol. 0098))
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-128-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Oct 2025
Summary:
Dear Authors and Editor,
Below, I summarise the general aspects of my review.
The paper does aim to address relevant scientific questions within the scope of WES, but they are insufficiently developed. Although the combination of ASPIRE LES + 1 year of measurement for V_50 is interesting, it has not been proven to be novel or generalisable due to a lack of methodological details and testing. It is true that the problem and its potential solutions apply to the international wind energy community; however, the interest is limited as long as the results are not robust or reproducible. The title does describes the aimed methodology and objective, but may lead to overinterpretation of the content presented (giving the impression of a definitive method).
Following the review, the scientific methods applied are weak and are not clearly detailed for reproduction. For example, there is a lack of detailed description of calibration (such as formulas), LES parameters, selection of 45 storms, and IC calculation. Some analyses and assumptions, as presented in this manuscript, are invalid because critical assumptions (e.g., stationarity of bias, independence of 4 days, use of POT with 45 preselected) are not justified and violate EVT hypotheses. Furthermore, the results presented are insufficient to support the interpretations in the discussion because results (e.g., V_ref within 3%) are only reported and are not supported by sensitivity analysis, convergence, or uncertainty propagation, which is necessary when proposing a method. It is true that the abstract summarises results but omits the critical methodological limitations. The structure of the text is fragmented, and although there is a minor error in cross-references, the logical flow is still poor. Although the authors intend to write concisely, the paper lacks the necessary depth; and some sentences are confusing.
Given the methodological weaknesses, lack of reproducibility, and limited statistical rigour of the proposed approach, I do not consider the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form. While the topic is relevant and of potential interest to the wind energy community, the execution does not meet the scientific and methodological standards required by Wind Energy Science. Therefore, I recommend rejection at this stage, though the authors could consider resubmitting a substantially revised and extended version as a full research article, addressing the methodological limitations, adding validation at multiple sites, and providing a statistically robust treatment of the extreme value analysis.
Thank you for your efforts, and I hope that the comments below will contribute to an improved version of the work.
Best regards,
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-128/wes-2025-128-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2025
This study presents a method combining measurements with LES model of 45 storms to calculate the 50-year wind speed. This method shows closest estimate to the value obtained from measurements when compared to a few other methods.
The reviewer thinks that it is an interesting exercise, but the presentation, the method, the analysis are far from being rigorous as a journal publication. The reviewer recommends rejection to the draft in this current form, and the reasons are given below.
- The draft seems written and submitted in a hast. It is a Brief communication, but the sentences still need to be completed properly. E.g., what is “…a.o. wind industry standard” (line 15)? What do the authors think about the sentence like “20 years of Cabauw (reference) (line 59)” which was used in two places.
- The method itself. Even though the estimate is close to the value obtained from measurements, it is not clear how one-year information (“the simulation period encompasses the full year of 2002” and 45 selected…when storms pass”) is sufficient for estimating 50-year wind. The authors also stated this question themselves at the beginning of Introduction.
- The authors say “In the wind industry, 12-month wind measurement campaigns are standard for determining long-term wind climate…”. The reviewer doubts the validity of this statement, and therefore strongly suggests that the authors provide authorized references to this.
- The authors are very brief in explaining what have been done and what have been presented. The measurements are at 80 m, the ERA5 data at 100 m, what about the winds from the LES model? This puts question mark to the eventual results comparison. For method c) the authors wrote “the correction is done based on an offset and bias correction of the bulk of the data and an additional correction of the highest wind speed values” – this sounds like a secret recipe, difficult for the others to repeat.
- There are no discussions on uncertainties related to any of the methods.
- There are no references to other publications who have estimated the 50-year winds at the Cabauw site (e.g. Hansen, B. O., Larsén, X. G., Kelly, M. C., Rathmann, O. S., Berg, J., Bechmann, A., Ejsing Jørgensen, H. (2016). Extreme Wind Calculation Applying Spectral Correction Method – Test and Validation. DTU Wind Energy. (DTU Wind Energy E, Vol. 0098))
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-128-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Oct 2025
Summary:
Dear Authors and Editor,
Below, I summarise the general aspects of my review.
The paper does aim to address relevant scientific questions within the scope of WES, but they are insufficiently developed. Although the combination of ASPIRE LES + 1 year of measurement for V_50 is interesting, it has not been proven to be novel or generalisable due to a lack of methodological details and testing. It is true that the problem and its potential solutions apply to the international wind energy community; however, the interest is limited as long as the results are not robust or reproducible. The title does describes the aimed methodology and objective, but may lead to overinterpretation of the content presented (giving the impression of a definitive method).
Following the review, the scientific methods applied are weak and are not clearly detailed for reproduction. For example, there is a lack of detailed description of calibration (such as formulas), LES parameters, selection of 45 storms, and IC calculation. Some analyses and assumptions, as presented in this manuscript, are invalid because critical assumptions (e.g., stationarity of bias, independence of 4 days, use of POT with 45 preselected) are not justified and violate EVT hypotheses. Furthermore, the results presented are insufficient to support the interpretations in the discussion because results (e.g., V_ref within 3%) are only reported and are not supported by sensitivity analysis, convergence, or uncertainty propagation, which is necessary when proposing a method. It is true that the abstract summarises results but omits the critical methodological limitations. The structure of the text is fragmented, and although there is a minor error in cross-references, the logical flow is still poor. Although the authors intend to write concisely, the paper lacks the necessary depth; and some sentences are confusing.
Given the methodological weaknesses, lack of reproducibility, and limited statistical rigour of the proposed approach, I do not consider the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form. While the topic is relevant and of potential interest to the wind energy community, the execution does not meet the scientific and methodological standards required by Wind Energy Science. Therefore, I recommend rejection at this stage, though the authors could consider resubmitting a substantially revised and extended version as a full research article, addressing the methodological limitations, adding validation at multiple sites, and providing a statistically robust treatment of the extreme value analysis.
Thank you for your efforts, and I hope that the comments below will contribute to an improved version of the work.
Best regards,
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 530 | 38 | 29 | 597 | 31 | 39 |
- HTML: 530
- PDF: 38
- XML: 29
- Total: 597
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1