Engineering topics

Optis, Mike (ORCID:0000000156176134)

Publications and source records attributed to Optis, Mike (ORCID:0000000156176134).

3 records

DOE OSTI2021

A Twenty-Year Analysis of Winds in California for Offshore Wind Energy Production Using WRF v4.1.2

Offshore wind resource characterization in the United States relies heavily on simulated winds from numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, given the lack of hub-height observations offshore. One such NWP data set used extensively by U.S. stakeholders is the Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit, a 7-year time-series data set produced in 2013 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In this study, we present an update to that data set for offshore California that leverages recent advancements in NWP modeling capabilities and extends the period of record to a full 20 years. The data set predicts a significantly larger wind resource (0.25–1.75 m s-1 stronger), including in three Call Areas that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is considering for commercial activity. We conduct a set of yearlong simulations to study factors that contribute to this increase in the modeled wind resource. The largest impact arises from a change in the planetary boundary layer parameterization from the Yonsei University scheme to the Mellor-Yamada-Nakanishi-Niino scheme and their diverging wind profiles under stable stratification. Additionally, we conduct a refined wind resource assessment at the three Call Areas, characterizing distributions of wind speed, shear, veer, stability, frequency of wind droughts, and power production. We find that, depending on the attribute, the new data set can show substantial disagreement with the WIND Toolkit, thereby driving important changes in predicted power.

49 EE - Wind and Water Power Program - Wind (EE-4W↗

DOE OSTI2020

How Should Machine Learning Be Successfully Used for Wind Speed Vertical Extrapolation?

An accurate characterization of the wind resource available at hub-height is required for an efficient and bankable wind farm project. However, direct measurement of wind speed at the constantly increasing height of the hub of commercial wind turbines is oftentimes challenging and expensive, so that it is common practice to vertically extrapolate the wind resource from lower and more easily accessible levels. Conventional techniques for wind speed vertical extrapolation include the use of a power law and a logarithmic profile. While simple, the limits in accuracy of these methods have been shown in various studies. Recently, machine learning has been proposed as a new method to vertically extrapolate winds. All the published studies on the topic assess the performance of machine learning techniques in vertically extrapolating the wind resource at the same location where the algorithm has been trained. However, in real-world applications, the wind resource is measured at the instrument location, but it then needs to be extrapolated at hub height at the location of the wind turbines within the find farm. To be able to fully recommend the use of machine learning techniques over the simple power law and logarithmic law, the spatial variability of the performance improvements of the machine learning approaches needs to be assessed. Here, we propose a round-robin validation of a machine learning-based method for wind speed extrapolation. We use 20 months of observations at four locations spanning a 100 km wide region at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) atmospheric observatory, in north-central Oklahoma. At each location, we train a random forest to predict 30-min average wind speed at 143 m AGL. We use as input features lidar wind speed at 65 m AGL, time of day, sonic anemometer wind speed at 4 m AGL, turbulent kinetic energy, and Obukhov length. First, we perform a same-site comparison of the performance of the proposed random forest against the conventional techniques for wind speed extrapolation (namely power law and logarithmic profile, with widely accepted stability corrections). We find that the random forest outperforms the power law in vertically extrapolating wind speed in all the considered stability regimes, with a 33% reduction in MAE for stable conditions, and a 31% reduction in unstable conditions. Similar results are found when comparing predictions of extrapolated winds from the logarithmic profile and the random forest with the observed values. Next, we propose a round-robin validation, to use the random forest trained at each site to extrapolate wind speed at the remaining three sites. We find that the performance of the random forest approach degrades when the algorithm is tested at a site different than the training one. However, even under those circumstances, the machine learning-based approach still outperforms the conventional techniques for wind speed extrapolation, with, on average, a reduction in mean absolute error between 15 and 20% over the conventional methods, with the largest benefits obtained under stable conditions.

Monte Carlo↗

DOE OSTI2020

How Wrong Can the Operational AEP Uncertainty Estimate Be When We Ignore the Correlations Between the Uncertainty Components?

Calculations of wind farm annual energy production (AEP) on operational data are essential for a variety of financial transactions during the life of wind plants. The AEP estimate is associated with an uncertainty value, which is calculated by combining contributions connected to on-site measurements, long-term reference measurements, losses, regression, windiness adjustment, and wind resource interannual variability. Although very limited documentation on the topic exists, the conventional approach currently used by the wind energy community to assess the uncertainty connected to the operational AEP estimate assume that the different uncertainty components are uncorrelated and therefore calculates the overall uncertainty with a sum of squares approach. In this analysis, we contrast the traditional technique to estimate the overall AEP uncertainty by ignoring the correlation between its different components with a novel Monte Carlo based approach, which can instead take into account the correlation between different uncertainty categories. We consider monthly operational data from 472 wind farms from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 923 database to assess the difference between the two approaches. Long-term wind speed data needed for the AEP assessment are taken from three reanalysis products: the Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications v2 (MERRA-2), the European Reanalysis Interim (ERA-interim), and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction v2 (NCEP-2). The results of the Monte Carlo approach show that three pairs of AEP uncertainty components do show a statistically significant correlation: the uncertainty connected with wind resource inter-annual variability is positively correlated with the one related to the windiness correction and negatively correlated with the one due to the regression, and the wind measurement uncertainty is positively correlated with the regression uncertainty. All these correlations, which are found between uncertainty components which are not only part of an operational analysis, but also of a wind resource assessment, are currently ignored in the conventional techniques used as industry standard. We further investigate the causes of these correlations, in terms of common dependencies of different uncertainty components on wind resource variability, number of data points, and quality of the regression between wind speed and energy production data. Next, we quantify the error in the current industry standard technique, in terms of the percentage difference in total uncertainty calculated with the two considered approaches, for all the analyzed wind farms. We find a mean absolute percentage difference of about 6%, with the largest differences being greater than 20%. The data clearly confirm that ignoring the actual correlation between the uncertainty components can lead to large errors in the assessment of the operational AEP uncertainty, and the proposed Monte Carlo approach should be preferred.

Monte Carlo↗