Evaluation of wind speed estimates in reanalyses for wind energy applications

• Published in: Advances in science and research Vol. 18; pp. 115 - 126
• Main Authors: Brune, Sebastian, Keller, Jan D., Wahl, Sabrina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Katlenburg-Lindau Copernicus GmbH 30.07.2021; Copernicus Publications
• Subjects: Air-turbines; Buildings and facilities; Datasets; Diurnal cycle; Diurnal variations; Downtime; Energy industry; Estimates; Height; Low-level jets; Mountains; Offshore; Performance evaluation; Representations; Surface properties; Terrain; Turbines; Valley breezes; Wind farms; Wind measurement; Wind power; Wind speed; Wind turbines; North Sea; Central Europe; Europe; Baltic Sea
• DOI: 10.5194/asr-18-115-2021
• ISSN: 1992-0636; 1992-0628

A correct spatio-temporal representation of retrospective wind speed estimates is of large interest for the wind energy sector. In this respect, reanalyses provide an invaluable source of information. However, the quality of the various reanalysis estimates for wind speed are difficult to assess. Therefore, this study compares wind measurements at hub heights from 14 locations in Central Europe with two global (ERA5, MERRA-2) and one regional reanalysis (COSMO-REA6). Employing metrics such as bias, RMSE and correlation, we evaluate the performance of the reanalyses with respect to (a) the local surface characteristics (offshore, flat onshore, hilly onshore), (b) various height levels (60 to 200 m) and (c) the diurnal cycle. As expected, we find that the reanalyses show the smallest errors to observations at offshore sites. Over land, MERRA-2 generally overestimates wind speeds, while COSMO-REA6 and ERA5 represent the average wind speed more realistically. At sites with flat terrain, ERA5 correlates better with observations than COSMO-REA6. In contrast, COSMO-REA6 performs slightly better over hilly terrain, which can be explained by the higher horizontal resolution. In terms of diurnal variation, ERA5 outperforms both other reanalyses. While the overestimation of MERRA-2 is consistent throughout the day, COSMO-REA6 significantly underestimates wind speed at night over flat and hilly terrain due to a misrepresentation of nightly low level jets and mountain and valley breezes. Regarding the representation of downtime of wind turbines due to low/high wind speeds, we find that MERRA-2 is consistently underperforming with respect to the other reanalyses. Here COSMO-REA6 performs better over the ocean, while ERA5 shows the best results over land.