4.6 Article

Quality control and estimation of global solar radiation in China

期刊

SOLAR ENERGY
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 466-475

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2010.01.006

关键词

Global radiation; Quality control; Sunshine duration; Hybrid model

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB421405]
  2. CAS (Chinese Academy of Sciences) [KZCX2-YW-Q10-2]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars
  4. State Education Ministry of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurements of surface radiation in China are too sparse to meet demand for scientific research and engineering applications. Moreover, the radiation data often include erroneous and questionable values though preliminary quality-check has been done before the data release. Therefore, quality control of radiation data is often a prerequisite for using these data. In this study, a set of quality-check procedures were implemented to control the quality of the solar radiation measurements at 97 stations in China. A hybrid model for estimating global solar radiation was then evaluated against the controlled data. The results show that the model can estimate the global radiation with accuracy of MBE less than 1.5 MJ m(-2) and RMSE less than 2.8 MJ m(-2) for daily radiation and RMSE less than 2.0 MJ m(-2) for monthly-mean daily radiation at individual stations over most of China except at a few stations where unsatisfactory estimates were possibly caused by severe air pollution or too dense clouds. The MBE averaged over all stations are about 0.7 MJ m(-2) and RMSE about 2.0 MJ m(-2) for daily radiation and RMSE about 1.3 MJ m(-2) for monthly-mean daily radiation. Finally, this model was used to fill data gaps and to expand solar radiation data set using routine meteorological station data in China. This data set would substantially contribute to some radiation-related scientific studies and engineering applications in China. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据