2021
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A case study of wind farm effects using two wake parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (V3.7.1) in the presence of low-level jets

Abstract: Abstract. While the wind farm parameterization by Fitch et al. (2012) in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model has been used and evaluated frequently, the explicit wake parameterization (EWP) by Volker et al. (2015) is less well explored. The openly available high-frequency flight measurements from Bärfuss et al. (2019a) provide an opportunity to directly compare the simulation results from the EWP and Fitch scheme with in situ measurements. In doing so, this study aims to complement the recent stud… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
(58 reference statements)
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Projected cumulative power output for these 5 days is a 6.94u10 12 W based on output from the EWP parameterization and a 5.55u10 12 W based on output from Fitch (a 20% difference, Table 1). These values equate to capacity factors (CF) of 33.4% and 26.7%, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Projected cumulative power output for these 5 days is a 6.94u10 12 W based on output from the EWP parameterization and a 5.55u10 12 W based on output from Fitch (a 20% difference, Table 1). These values equate to capacity factors (CF) of 33.4% and 26.7%, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…x The second analysis compared EWP and Fitch also with aircraft observations [12] and found: "The WRF model with both the Fitch and EWP schemes can capture the wind speed field rather well and consistently. ….…”
Section: Wind Farm Parameterizations In Wrfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also noticeable that the reduction in wind speed shows a negative trend with increasing height. While the maximum height of the lidar measurements may be 200 m and most of the wind turbines in the surrounding area have a total height of between 140 m and 180 m, some interaction effects can also be detected above the wind farm due to vertical wake expansion (Siedersleben et al, 2018a;Larsén and Fischereit, 2021). However, as measurements at a height of 200 m are only partially influenced by the wind turbines, as they are no longer completely behind the rotor surface, this probably explains the lower wind speed difference u dif f (WRF) at 200 m. The wind speed differences can be further emphasized for different atmospheric stability conditions within a region.…”
Section: Directional and Stability Dependence Of Cluster Wakesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wind farms can affect local circulation and regional weather; if sufficiently large, they may even alter the structure of weather systems like low-level jets (Larsén and Fischereit 2 ). Using remote sensing, Christiansen and Hasager 3 reported that as wind flow passed through large arrays of wind turbines, the mean wind speed was reduced by 8–9% and wake length could exceed 20 km.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also claimed that the previous studies with the bug need to be revised to evaluate the impacts of wind farms. Larsén and Fischereit 2 used the bug-fixed version of WRF to study the wind farm effects in the presence of low-level jets. They found that the value of the correction factor has a significant impact on the results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%