4.7 Article

Evaluation of the wind farm parameterization in the Weather Research and Forecasting model (version 3.8.1) with meteorological and turbine power data

Journal

GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages 4229-4244

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-10-4229-2017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [1413980]
  2. National Science Foundation under the State of Iowa EPSCoR grant [1101284]
  3. National Renewable Energy Laboratory [CWEX-13]
  4. National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  6. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1413980] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Forecasts of wind-power production are necessary to facilitate the integration of wind energy into power grids, and these forecasts should incorporate the impact of windturbine wakes. This paper focuses on a case study of four diurnal cycles with significant power production, and assesses the skill of the wind farm parameterization (WFP) distributed with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 3.8.1, as well as its sensitivity to model configuration. After validating the simulated ambient flow with observations, we quantify the value of the WFP as it accounts for wake impacts on power production of downwind turbines. We also illustrate with statistical significance that a vertical grid with approximately 12m vertical resolution is necessary for reproducing the observed power production. Further, the WFP overestimates wake effects and hence underestimates downwind power production during high wind speed, highly stable, and low turbulence conditions. We also find the WFP performance is independent of the number of wind turbines per model grid cell and the upwind-downwind position of turbines. Rather, the ability of the WFP to predict power production is most dependent on the skill of the WRF model in simulating the ambient wind speed.

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