4.6 Article

Evaluation and improvement of TAPM in estimating solar irradiance in Eastern Australia

期刊

SOLAR ENERGY
卷 107, 期 -, 页码 668-680

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2014.06.018

关键词

Solar irradiance; TAPM; Model evaluation; Australia

资金

  1. Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerical Weather Prediction models provide short and medium-range solar irradiance forecasts. This paper investigates the accuracy of The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) in estimating Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI). The model uses standard meteorological fields but with no real-time cloud/aerosol information. In order to assess the model, TAPM-estimated GHI is compared to satellite-derived GHI at selected sites in Eastern Australia. The satellite data used in this study was compared to ground-based observations at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology stations and adjusted accordingly. Also, the model-estimated Gill at horizontal spatial resolutions of 45, 15, 5, 1.5 and 0.5 km were compared to adjusted-satellite data. The results revealed that the resolution of 45 km had the lowest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). This means that variations on scales less than 45 km cannot be captured by the model properly. We also found that during cloudy conditions, the RMSE could increase by around 300% compared to clear-sky conditions for both lower and higher resolutions. Therefore, most of the large errors that occur during cloudy conditions are associated with the misrepresentation of clouds in the model, in particular during deep low-pressure systems, passage of cold fronts, Easterly troughs, cloud bands, and in some conditions even during high pressure systems. Furthermore, correcting the 45 km modelled GHI for clear-sky errors improved the accuracy of the model and reduced the RMSE, Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Bias Error (MBE) on average by maximum 16%, 26% and 84% respectively. (C) 2014 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