4.6 Article

Performance Evaluation of LIDAR and SODAR Wind Profilers on the Brazilian Equatorial Margin

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su142114654

关键词

wind potential; equatorial margin; LIDAR; SODAR

资金

  1. Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency's (ANEEL) RD Program [PD-00037-0042/2020]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development of Brazil (CNPq)
  3. Foundation for Support to Research to Research and Scientific and Technological Development of Maranhao (FAPEMA)
  4. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  5. National Institute of Science & Technology in Ocean and Fluvial Energies (INEOF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the performance of a LIDAR and a SODAR in evaluating wind speed at different altitudes, finding that the LIDAR had slightly better performance in horizontal velocity and sampling efficiency compared to the SODAR, with both sensors showing similar performance at different locations.
This article seeks to compare the performance of a LIDAR Windcube V2, manufactured by Leosphere, with that of a SODAR MFAS, manufactured by Scintec, in evaluating wind speed at different altitudes. The data from these two sensors were collected at three locations on the Brazilian equatorial margin in the state of Maranhao. The comparison of these sensors aims at their simultaneous use at different points. The horizontal velocity components, by altitude, showed Pearson correlation values above 0.9 and values for the vertical velocity component between 0.7 and 0.85. As for the sampling efficiency, the LIDAR had a performance slightly higher than that of SODAR, especially at the point closest to the coast. In general, both sensors showed similar values, despite the differences in sampling methods. The results showed that the joint performance of these sensors had good correlation, being reliable for application in estimating wind potential for power generation in coastal areas of the equatorial region.

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