4.2 Article

Framework for assessment of climate change impact on offshore wind energy

期刊

METEOROLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 94-104

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/met.1673

关键词

wind potential; climate change; general circulation models; uncertainty assessment; quantile mapping; artificial neural network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A probabilistic framework for evaluating changes in offshore wind potential under a changing climate is presented considering three general circulation models (GCMs), two representative concentration pathways and two statistical downscaling techniques. The analysis was done with respect to three specific locations along the Indian coastline, identified earlier for future offshore energy extraction. The uncertainty among the GCMs was addressed and the choice of an appropriate GCM was made by combining analysis of GCM uncertainty and model reliability. The regional scale wind was derived from the selected GCM using one hard computing method, namely bilinear interpolation and quantile mapping, and one soft method, an artificial neural network. The efficiency of these methods was assessed using certain performance criteria for the historical period and a convergence criterion over the future period. To evaluate wind potential, the GCM output was downscaled from daily to hourly, taking into account the removal of gusts because of long interval averaging. The wind potential for past (1979-2005) and future (2006-2032) time slices was determined using both hard and soft methods as well as two representative concentration pathways. The resulting four outcomes at annual and seasonal scale were compared with the extrapolated trend of past wind potential derived from both GCM and reanalysis data. Finally, the most efficient strategy was evaluated and the actual extractable power was estimated considering a standard power curve. It is concluded that at all the three locations the annual average wind potential will substantially increase, benefitting the offshore industry.

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

4.2
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