the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Part 1: Multifractal analysis of wind turbine power and the associated biases
Abstract. The inherent variability in atmospheric fields, which extends over a wide range of temporal and spatial scales, also gets transferred to energy fields extracted off them. In the specific case of wind power generation, this can be seen in the theoretical power available for extraction in the atmosphere as well as the empirical power produced by turbines. Further the power produced by turbines are affected by atmospheric turbulence as well as other fields it interact with. For modelling as well as analyzing them, quantification of their variability, intermittency and correlations with other interacting fields is important. To understand the uncertainties involved in power production, power outputs from four 2MW turbines are analyzed from an operational wind farm at Pay d’Othe, 110 km southeast of Paris, France. Using simultaneously measured wind velocity from the same location, the variability in power available at the wind farm, and power produced by wind turbines were analyzed.
To account for the intermittency and variability in said fields, the framework of Universal Multifractals (UM) is used. UM is a widely used, physically based, scale invariant framework for characterizing and simulating geophysical fields over a wide range of scales. While statistically analysing the power produced by the turbine, rated power acts like an upper threshold resulting in biased estimators. This is identified and quantified here using the theoretical framework of UM along with the actual sampling resolution of instruments under study. The validity of this bias in framework is further tested and illustrated using numerical simulations of fields with the same multifractal properties. Understanding instrumental thresholds and their effect in analysis is important in retrieving actual fields and modelling them, more so, in the case of power production where the uncertainties due to turbulence are already a leading challenge. This is further expanded in the second part where the influence of rainfall in power production is studied using scale invariant tools of UM and joint multifractals.
- Preprint
(4267 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on npg-2024-5', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
I attach my evaluation of the manuscript in PDF format
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jerry Jose, 09 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on npg-2024-5', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2024
This work arises from the difficulty of analysing by means of a multifractal approach the empirical turbine power, since the production of wind turbines is limited by a maximum or nominal power. An adequate theoretical framework of wind behaviour is crucial for understanding its effect on wind turbine power. On the other hand, it is known that the existence of instrumental limits causes biases.
In this work, authors employ the universal multifractal formalism for characterizing the small-scale fluctuation in wind power production and for highlighting the aforementioned biases and their influence on statistical analysis of turbine power.
To my mind, the work is very pertinent. It is very well argued. The objectives are achieved with a robust methodology, and thus my recommendation is to accept the paper. Some minor suggestions are made below:
- On line 127, page 5 appears that the sampling frequency is 15 s. It is suggested to clearly indicate if this is the sampling resolution of the variables.
- One of the main objectives of this work is to analyse several biases due to wind measurements. On line 130, page 6 the text reads: ‘There are instances where the turbine failed to produce any power and had to consume energy for its basic operation. This results in negative values in data, and for realistic analysis, they were considered as zero’. It could be interesting if the authors could provide some light about the effect of applying this criterion.
- On line 172, page 7 add a space between the full stop and the sentence that initiates as ‘For a conservative…’. The same is said on line 246, page 12.
- On line 207, page 9. It is suggested to clarify what are the parameters q_s and r_D.
- Figure 4. Please replace the current format of the date in the title of the Figures (2021_05_00_00_00__2021_05_26_23_59_30) with a more understandable date format.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-2024-5-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jerry Jose, 09 May 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on npg-2024-5', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
I attach my evaluation of the manuscript in PDF format
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jerry Jose, 09 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on npg-2024-5', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2024
This work arises from the difficulty of analysing by means of a multifractal approach the empirical turbine power, since the production of wind turbines is limited by a maximum or nominal power. An adequate theoretical framework of wind behaviour is crucial for understanding its effect on wind turbine power. On the other hand, it is known that the existence of instrumental limits causes biases.
In this work, authors employ the universal multifractal formalism for characterizing the small-scale fluctuation in wind power production and for highlighting the aforementioned biases and their influence on statistical analysis of turbine power.
To my mind, the work is very pertinent. It is very well argued. The objectives are achieved with a robust methodology, and thus my recommendation is to accept the paper. Some minor suggestions are made below:
- On line 127, page 5 appears that the sampling frequency is 15 s. It is suggested to clearly indicate if this is the sampling resolution of the variables.
- One of the main objectives of this work is to analyse several biases due to wind measurements. On line 130, page 6 the text reads: ‘There are instances where the turbine failed to produce any power and had to consume energy for its basic operation. This results in negative values in data, and for realistic analysis, they were considered as zero’. It could be interesting if the authors could provide some light about the effect of applying this criterion.
- On line 172, page 7 add a space between the full stop and the sentence that initiates as ‘For a conservative…’. The same is said on line 246, page 12.
- On line 207, page 9. It is suggested to clarify what are the parameters q_s and r_D.
- Figure 4. Please replace the current format of the date in the title of the Figures (2021_05_00_00_00__2021_05_26_23_59_30) with a more understandable date format.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-2024-5-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jerry Jose, 09 May 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
458 | 84 | 25 | 567 | 20 | 18 |
- HTML: 458
- PDF: 84
- XML: 25
- Total: 567
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1