2017
DOI: 10.5194/wes-2-189-2017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statistical characterization of roughness uncertainty and impact on wind resource estimation

Abstract: Abstract. In this work we relate uncertainty in background roughness length (z 0 ) to uncertainty in wind speeds, where the latter are predicted at a wind farm location based on wind statistics observed at a different site. Sensitivity of predicted winds to roughness is derived analytically for the industry-standard European Wind Atlas method, which is based on the geostrophic drag law. We statistically consider roughness and its corresponding uncertainty, in terms of both z 0 derived from measured wind speeds… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the accuracy of the maps and surface roughness is unknown. Previous studies have estimated the mean surface roughnesses uncertainties on the order of a factor of ∼ 3 (Kelly and Jørgensen, 2017). Halving and doubling all the roughnesses in Table 2 leads to mean wind speed errors for the 291 masts in this study of −0.11 ± 0.75 and 0.61 ± 0.78 after downscaling with WAsP, showing the wide span of results one can obtained within "reasonable" roughness values.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the accuracy of the maps and surface roughness is unknown. Previous studies have estimated the mean surface roughnesses uncertainties on the order of a factor of ∼ 3 (Kelly and Jørgensen, 2017). Halving and doubling all the roughnesses in Table 2 leads to mean wind speed errors for the 291 masts in this study of −0.11 ± 0.75 and 0.61 ± 0.78 after downscaling with WAsP, showing the wide span of results one can obtained within "reasonable" roughness values.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…Therefore, the evaluation is based on mast-specific wind climates estimated with the NEWA model chain, modified slightly to be flexible for the purpose of the evaluation. The main differences between the methods used for the longterm atlas and for the evaluation presented here are as follows: (1) the evaluation method represents wind climates as a histogram (bins) throughout, while the long-term method fits a Weibull distribution during the generalization step, and (2) the evaluation method assumes neutral stability for vertical extrapolation and makes no stability correction to the wind climate, while the long-term method assumes slightly stable conditions (on land) for vertical extrapolation and makes a stability correction (Kelly and Troen, 2016) during the generalization step. These two factors should add very small differences between the two methods of evaluation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the relative change of LAI is 8% between the 1980s and 2010s, the modelled relative change in z 0 is only 1.3%, changing from 0.2569 in the 1980s to 0.2601 in the 2010s. Assuming an unchanged pressure gradient, the change in z 0 leads to 0.35% decrease of surface wind speed at 10 m height (Kelly and Jørgensen 2017), which is −0.013 m s −1 during 1982-2011. It is still an order of magnitude smaller than the observed trend from in situ observations (−0.198 m s −1 , figure 1(b)).…”
Section: Modelled Response Of U Over Land To the Greening Of The Earthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In practice, a background value for z 0 and d is set, and adjustments are made for specific areas where the roughness and displacement height differ from the background values. Manual assessments are subjective and time-consuming, and they can lead to a high level of uncertainty of the estimated wind resource (Kelly and Jørgensen, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%