4.6 Article

Comparative performance of AI methods for wind power forecast in Portugal

Journal

WIND ENERGY
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 39-53

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/we.2556

Keywords

adaptive neural fuzzy inference system; artificial neural network; cross-validation; radial basis function network; wind power forecast

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [UIDB/50021/2020]
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [UIDB/50021/2020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper compares the performance of artificial intelligence-based methods in forecasting wind power generation 1 hour ahead, with ANFIS being the best performer and ANN and RBFN-OLS also showing strong performances. RBFN-Hybrid and RBFN-SGD performed poorly, but overall, all methods outperformed persistence.
Because wind has a high volatility and the respective energy produced cannot be stored on a large scale because of excessive costs, it is of utmost importance to be able to forecast wind power generation with the highest accuracy possible. The aim of this paper is to compare 1-h-ahead wind power forecasts performance using artificial intelligence-based methods, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs), adaptive neural fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and radial basis function network (RBFN). The latter was implemented using three different learning algorithms: stochastic gradient descent (SGD), hybrid, and orthogonal least squares (OLS). The application dataset is the injected wind power in the Portuguese power systems throughout the years 2010-2014. The network architecture optimization and the learning algorithms are presented. An initial data analysis showed data seasonality; therefore, the wind power forecasts were performed according to the seasons of the year. The results showed that ANFIS was the best performer method, and ANN and RBFN-OLS also showed strong performances. RBFN-Hybrid and RBFN-SGD performed poorly. In general, all methods outperformed persistence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available