Articles | Volume 14, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021
Model evaluation paper
 | 
02 Jun 2021
Model evaluation paper |  | 02 Jun 2021

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

Xiaoli G. Larsén and Jana Fischereit

Related authors

Tropical cyclone low-level wind speed, shear, and veer: sensitivity to the boundary layer parametrization in the Weather Research and Forecasting model
Sara Müller, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, and David Robert Verelst
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1153–1171, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1153-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Modelling wind farm effects in HARMONIE–AROME (cycle 43.2.2) – Part 1: Implementation and evaluation
Jana Fischereit, Henrik Vedel, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Natalie E. Theeuwes, Gregor Giebel, and Eigil Kaas
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2855–2875, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024, 2024
Short summary
The Impact of Climate Change on Extreme Winds over Northern Europe According to CMIP6
Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Marc Imberger, Ásta Hannesdóttir, and Andrea N. Hahmann
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-102,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-102, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Adjusted spectral correction method for calculating extreme winds in tropical-cyclone-affected water areas
Xiaoli Guo Larsén and Søren Ott
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2457–2468, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2457-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2457-2022, 2022
Short summary
Comparing and validating intra-farm and farm-to-farm wakes across different mesoscale and high-resolution wake models
Jana Fischereit, Kurt Schaldemose Hansen, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Maarten Paul van der Laan, Pierre-Elouan Réthoré, and Juan Pablo Murcia Leon
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1069–1091, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Emission ensemble approach to improve the development of multi-scale emission inventories
Philippe Thunis, Jeroen Kuenen, Enrico Pisoni, Bertrand Bessagnet, Manjola Banja, Lech Gawuc, Karol Szymankiewicz, Diego Guizardi, Monica Crippa, Susana Lopez-Aparicio, Marc Guevara, Alexander De Meij, Sabine Schindlbacher, and Alain Clappier
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3631–3643, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3631-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3631-2024, 2024
Short summary
What is the relative impact of nudging and online coupling on meteorological variables, pollutant concentrations and aerosol optical properties?
Laurent Menut, Bertrand Bessagnet, Arineh Cholakian, Guillaume Siour, Sylvain Mailler, and Romain Pennel
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3645–3665, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3645-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3645-2024, 2024
Short summary
Diagnosing drivers of PM2.5 simulation biases in China from meteorology, chemical composition, and emission sources using an efficient machine learning method
Shuai Wang, Mengyuan Zhang, Yueqi Gao, Peng Wang, Qingyan Fu, and Hongliang Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3617–3629, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3617-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3617-2024, 2024
Short summary
Validation and analysis of the Polair3D v1.11 chemical transport model over Quebec
Shoma Yamanouchi, Shayamilla Mahagammulla Gamage, Sara Torbatian, Jad Zalzal, Laura Minet, Audrey Smargiassi, Ying Liu, Ling Liu, Forood Azargoshasbi, Jinwoong Kim, Youngseob Kim, Daniel Yazgi, and Marianne Hatzopoulou
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3579–3597, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3579-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3579-2024, 2024
Short summary
Assimilation of GNSS tropospheric gradients into the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.4.1
Rohith Thundathil, Florian Zus, Galina Dick, and Jens Wickert
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3599–3616, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3599-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3599-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

4Coffshore: Global Offshore Wind Farms, available at: http://www.4coffshore.com, last access: 29 May 2021. a
Abkar, M., Sharifi, A., and Porté-Agel, F.: Wake flow in a wind farm during a diurnal cycle, J. Turbulence, 17, 420–441, https://doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2015.1127379, 2016. a
Archer, C. L., Wu, S., and Ma, Y.: Two corrections for turbulent kinetic energy generated by wind farms in the WRF model, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 4823–4835, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0097.1, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Badger, J., Imberger, M., Volker, P., A. Kleidon, S. G., and Minz, J.: Making the most of offshore wind – re-evaluating the potential of offshore wind in the German North Sea, available at: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/publications/making-the-most-of-offshore-wind/ (last access: 29 May 2021), 2020. a
Bärfuss, K., Hankers, R., Bitter, M., Feuerle, T., Schulz, H., Rausch, T., Platis, A., Bange, J., and Lampert, A.: In-situ airborne measurements of atmospheric and sea surface parameters related to offshore wind parks in the German Bight, PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.902845, 2019a. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Download
Short summary
For the first time, turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) calculated from the explicit wake parameterization (EWP) in WRF is examined using high-frequency measurements over a wind farm and compared with that calculated using the Fitch et al. (2012) scheme. We examined the effect of farm-induced TKE advection in connection with the Fitch scheme. Through a case study with a low-level jet (LLJ), we analyzed the key features of LLJs and raised the issue of interaction between wind farms and LLJs.