4.7 Article

Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 114, Issue -, Pages 1224-1239

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.068

Keywords

Wind power; Wind farm; Reanalysis; Capacity factor; Energy yield; Europe

Funding

  1. Engineering and Physical Science Research Council [EP/L024756/1]
  2. European Research Council [StG 2012 313553]
  3. Grantham Institute at Imperial College London
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L024756/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. EPSRC [EP/L024756/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reanalysis models are rapidly gaining popularity for simulating wind power output due to their convenience and global coverage. However, they should only be relied upon once thoroughly proven. This paper reports the first international validation of reanalysis for wind energy, testing NASA's MERRA and MERRA-2 in 23 European countries. Both reanalyses suffer significant spatial bias, overestimating wind output by 50% in northwest Europe and underestimating by 30% in the Mediterranean. We derive national correction factors, and show that after calibration national hourly output can be modelled with R-2 above 0.95. Our underlying data are made freely available to aid future research. We then assess Europe's wind resources with twenty-year simulations of the current and potential future fleets. Europe's current average capacity factor is 24.2%, with countries ranging from 19.5% (Germany) to 32.4% (Britain). Capacity factors are rising due to improving technology and locations; for example, Britain's wind fleet is now 23% more productive than in 2005. Based on the current planning pipeline, we estimate Europe's average capacity factor could increase by nearly a third to 31.3%. Countries with large stakes in the North Sea will see significant gains, with Britain's average capacity factor rising to 39.4% and Germany's to 29.1%. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available