4.8 Article

Factors affecting the calculation of wind power potentials: A case study of China

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111351

关键词

Wind power; Potential; China; Sensitivity analysis; Model-based; Impact factors

资金

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research BMBF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown that wind power is one of the most promising renewable energy options in China. Estimations of onshore wind power generation potential vary widely in different studies, largely influenced by factors such as weather data sets, land utilisation factors, and wind turbine configurations. Further scrutiny of the assumptions and data used in these studies is necessary, as they play a crucial role in developing decarbonisation strategies for the energy system.
In order to mitigate global climate change and air pollution, the Chinese government has assigned high priority to expanding low-carbon power generation in China. Recent studies have shown that wind power is one of the most promising renewable energy option in China. Although many studies have estimated the generation potential of onshore wind power, their results vary widely from 1783 TWh to 39,000 TWh. Therefore, we examine the different assumptions in these papers and identify three main factors influencing the results. The three influencing factors are: weather data set, land utilisation factor, and wind turbine configuration. For our modelbased analysis, we define a reference scenario which is used to compare the results. Our analysis shows using a different weather data set increases the generation potential to roughly 35,000 TWh. This is 54% higher than the generation potential of the reference scenario. The land utilisation factor also has a large influence, ranging between -10% and -51%. The studies' assumptions and data should be subjected to careful scrutiny, as the calculated wind power potentials are widely used to develop decarbonisation strategies for the energy system.

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

4.8
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