• Energy Research
• Remote Sensing close

Ocean winds in the Baltic Sea are expected to power many wind farms in the coming years. This study examines satellite Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images from Envisat ASAR for mapping wind resources with high spatial resolution. Around 900 collocated pairs of wind speed from SAR wind maps and from 10 meteorological masts, established specifically for wind energy in the study area, are compared. The statistical results comparing in situ wind speed and SAR-based wind speed show a root mean square error of 1.17 m s−1, bias of −0.25 m s−1, standard deviation of 1.88 m s−1 and correlation coefficient of R2 0.783. Wind directions from a global atmospheric model, interpolated in time and space, are used as input to the geophysical model function CMOD-5 for SAR wind retrieval. Wind directions compared to mast observations show a root mean square error of 6.29° with a bias of 7.75°, standard deviation of 20.11° and R2 of 0.950. The scale and shape parameters, A and k, respectively, from the Weibull probability density function are compared at only one available mast and the results deviate ~2% for A but ~16% for k. Maps of A and k, and wind power density based on more than 1000 satellite images show wind power density values to range from 300 to 800 W m−2 for the 14 existing and 42 planned wind farms.

This Special Issue hosts papers on aspects of remote sensing for atmospheric conditions for wind energy applications. The wind lidar technology is presented from a theoretical view on the coherent focused Doppler lidar principles. Furthermore, wind lidar for applied use for wind turbine control, wind farm wake, and gust characterizations are presented, as well as methods to reduce uncertainty when using lidar in complex terrain. Wind lidar observations are used to validate numerical model results. Wind Doppler lidar mounted on aircraft used for observing winds in hurricane conditions and Doppler radar on the ground used for very short-term wind forecasting are presented. For the offshore environment, floating lidar data processing is presented as well as an experiment with wind-profiling lidar on a ferry for model validation. Assessments of wind resources in the coastal zone using wind-profiling lidar and global wind maps using satellite data are presented.

In the North Sea, an array of wind profiling wind lidars were deployed mainly on offshore platforms. The purpose was to observe free stream winds at hub height. Eight lidars were validated prior to offshore deployment with observations from cup anemometers at 60, 80, 100 and 116 m on an onshore met mast situated in flat terrain. The so-called “NORSEWInD standard” for comparing lidar and mast wind data includes the criteria that the slope of the linear regression should lie within 0.98 and 1.01 and the linear correlation coefficient higher than 0.98 for the wind speed range 4–16 m∙s−1. Five lidars performed excellently, two slightly failed the first criterion and one failed both. The lidars were operated offshore from six months to more than two years and observed in total 107 months of 10-min mean wind profile observations. Four lidars were re-evaluated post deployment with excellent results. The flow distortion around platforms was examined using wind tunnel experiments and computational fluid dynamics and it was found that at 100 m height wind observations by the lidars were not significantly influenced by flow distortion. Observations of the vertical wind profile shear exponent at hub height are presented.

We study the wind climate and its long-term variability in the North Sea and South China Sea, areas relevant for offshore wind energy development, using satellite-based wind data, because very few reliable long-term in-situ sea surface wind observations are available. The Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) ocean winds extrapolated from 10 m to 100 m using the Charnock relationship and the logarithmic profile method are compared to Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model results in both seas and to in-situ observations in the North Sea. The mean wind speed from SSM/I and WRF differ only by 0.1 m/s at Fino1 in the North Sea, while west of Hainan in the South China Sea the difference is 1.0 m/s. Linear regression between SSM/I and WRF winds at 100 m show correlation coefficients squared of 0.75 and 0.67, standard deviation of 1.67 m/s and 1.41 m/s, and mean difference of −0.12 m/s and 0.83 m/s for Fino1 and Hainan, respectively. The WRF-derived winds overestimate the values in the South China Sea. The inter-annual wind speed variability is estimated as 4.6% and 4.4% based on SSM/I at Fino1 and Hainan, respectively. We find significant changes in the seasonal wind pattern at Fino1 with springtime winds arriving one month earlier from 1988 to 2013 and higher winds in June; no yearly trend in wind speed is observed in the two seas.

This article highlights the inter-comparisons of the wind measurement techniques available in deep water areas working towards combining them to obtain optimal estimates of the wind power potential. More specifically, this article presents comparisons of the Ferry Lidar Experiment wind data with those of the Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT), the FINO2 meteorological mast, and the New European Wind Atlas (NEWA) simulations performed using the Weather Research, and Forecasting (WRF) mesoscale model. To be comparable to ASCAT surface winds, which are referenced at 10 m, the ferry lidar and FINO2 wind profile measurements were extrapolated down to 10 m using atmospheric stability information derived from the bulk Richardson number formulation. ASCAT had the lowest associated error compared with that of the ferry lidar in near-neutral atmospheric stratifications, whereas FINO2, despite a distance range of 30 km and a moving ferry lidar target, had the highest correlation and lowest RMSE in all atmospheric conditions. Due to the high frequency of low-level jets caused by the proximity to land from all directions as well as typically stable atmospheric conditions, the extrapolated ferry lidar measurements underpredicted the ASCAT 10 m wind speeds. WRF consistently underperformed compared to the other measurement methods, even with the ability to directly compare results with all other sources at all heights.