Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “wind direction variability”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Design and analysis of a wake steering controller with wind direction variability

Wind farm control strategies are being developed to mitigate wake losses in wind farms, increasing energy production. Wake steering is a type of wind farm control in which a wind turbine's yaw position is misaligned from the wind direction, causing its wake to deflect away from downstream turbines. Current modeling tools used to optimize and estimate energy gains from wake steering are designed to represent wakes for fixed wind directions. However, wake steering controllers must operate in dynamic wind conditions and a turbine's yaw position cannot perfectly track changing wind directions. Research has been conducted on robust wake steering control optimized for variable wind directions. In this paper, the design and analysis of a wake steering controller with wind direction variability is presented for a two-turbine array using the FLOw Redirection and Induction in Steady State (FLORIS) control-oriented wake model. First, the authors propose a method for modeling the turbulent and low-frequency components of the wind direction, where the slowly varying wind direction serves as the relevant input to the wake model. Next, we explain a procedure for finding optimal yaw offsets for dynamic wind conditions considering both wind direction and yaw position uncertainty. We then performed simulations with the optimal yaw offsets applied using a realistic yaw offset controller in conjunction with a baseline yaw controller, showing good agreement with the predicted energy gain using the probabilistic model. Using the Gaussian wake model in FLORIS as an example, we compared the performance of yaw offset controllers optimized for static and dynamic wind conditions for different turbine spacings and turbulence intensity values, assuming uniformly distributed wind directions. For a spacing of five rotor diameters and a turbulence intensity of 10 %, robust yaw offsets optimized for variable wind directions yielded an energy gain equivalent to 3.24 % of wake losses recovered, compared to 1.42 % of wake losses recovered with yaw offsets optimized for static wind directions. In general, accounting for wind direction variability in the yaw offset optimization process was found to improve energy production more as the separation distance increased, whereas the relative improvement remained roughly the same for the range of turbulence intensity values considered.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Field Validation of Wake Steering Control with Wind Direction Variability

Wake steering is a wind farm control strategy wherein upstream turbines are misaligned with the wind direction to redirect their wakes away from downstream turbines, increasing overall wind plant power. Wake steering is often analyzed assuming steady mean wind directions across the wind farm. However, in practice, the wind direction varies considerably over time because of large-scale weather phenomena. Wind direction variability causes the increase in power production from wake-steering to be less than predicted by steady-state models, but more robust wake-steering strategies can be designed that account for variable wind conditions. This paper compares the achieved yaw offsets and power gains from two different 2-turbine wake-steering experiments at a commercial wind farm with model predictions using the FLOw Redirection and Induction in Steady State (FLORIS) control-oriented model, assuming both fixed and variable wind directions. The impact of wind direction variability is modeled by including wind direction and yaw uncertainty in the FLORIS calculations. The field results match the trends predicted, assuming wind direction variability. Specifically, the yaw offsets achieved in the intended control regions are lower than desired, resulting in less power gain, while a slight loss in power occurs for wind directions outside of the intended control region because of unintentional yaw misalignment. The agreement between the model and field results suggests that the wind direction variability model can be used to design wake-steering controllers that are more robust to variable wind conditions present in the field.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Field Validation of Wake Steering Control with Wind Direction Variability: Preprint

Wake steering is a type of wind farm control strategy wherein upstream turbines are misaligned with the wind direction to redirect their wakes away from downstream turbines, increasing overall wind plant power. Wake steering is often analyzed assuming steady mean wind directions across the wind farm. However, in practice, the wind direction varies considerably over time because of large-scale weather phenomena. Wind direction variability causes wake steering controllers to increase power production less than predicted by steady state models, but more robust wake steering strategies can be designed that account for variable wind conditions. This paper compares the achieved yaw offsets and power gains from two 2-turbine wake steering experiments at a commercial wind farm with model predictions using the FLOw Redirection and Induction in Steady State (FLORIS) control-oriented model, assuming both fixed and variable wind directions. The impact of wind direction variability is modeled by including wind direction and yaw uncertainty in the FLORIS calculations. The field results match the trends predicted assuming wind direction variability. Specifically, the yaw offsets achieved in the intended control regions are lower than desired, resulting in less power gain, while a slight loss in power occurs for wind directions outside of the intended control region because of unintentional yaw misalignment. The agreement between the model and field results suggests that the wind direction variability model can be used to design wake steering controllers that are more robust to variable wind conditions present in the field.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Results from a wake-steering experiment at a commercial wind plant: investigating the wind speed dependence of wake-steering performance

Wake steering is a wind farm control strategy in which upstream wind turbines are misaligned with the wind to redirect their wakes away from downstream turbines, thereby increasing the net wind plant power production and reducing fatigue loads generated by wake turbulence. In this paper, we present results from a wake-steering experiment at a commercial wind plant involving two wind turbines spaced 3.7 rotor diameters apart. During the 3-month experiment period, we estimate that wake steering reduced wake losses by 5.6% for the wind direction sector investigated. After applying a long-term correction based on the site wind rose, the reduction in wake losses increases to 9.3%. As a function of wind speed, we find large energy improvements near cut-in wind speed, where wake steering can prevent the downstream wind turbine from shutting down. Yet for wind speeds between 6–8 m/s, we observe little change in performance with wake steering. However, wake steering was found to improve energy production significantly for below-rated wind speeds from 8–12 m/s. By measuring the relationship between yaw misalignment and power production using a nacelle lidar, we attribute much of the improvement in wake-steering performance at higher wind speeds to a significant reduction in the power loss of the upstream turbine as wind speed increases. Additionally, we find higher wind direction variability at lower wind speeds, which contributes to poor performance in the 6–8 m/s wind speed bin because of slow yaw controller dynamics. Further, we compare the measured performance of wake steering to predictions using the FLORIS (FLOw Redirection and Induction in Steady State) wind farm control tool coupled with a wind direction variability model. Although the achieved yaw offsets at the upstream wind turbine fall short of the intended yaw offsets, we find that they are predicted well by the wind direction variability model. When incorporating the expected yaw offsets, estimates of the energy improvement from wake steering using FLORIS closely match the experimental results.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

NNSS Soils Monitoring: Plutonium Valley (CAU 366) FY2019

Desert Research Institute (DRI) conducted a field assessment of the potential for radionuclide-contaminated soil to be transported from the Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites Contamination Area (CA) because of both wind and storm water runoff. This activity supported U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management Nevada Program (EM NV) efforts to establish post-closure monitoring plans for the Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 366. The DRI task was intended to identify the likely mechanism(s) of transport and determine the meteorological conditions that might cause the movement of radionuclide-contaminated soils. The emphasis of the work was on collecting sediment transported by channelized storm runoff and measuring airborne dust concentrations and associated wind conditions. These data will facilitate an appropriate post-closure monitoring program. In 2011, DRI installed meteorological monitoring stations north and south of the Plutonium Valley CA—known as Pu Valley North and Pu Valley South, respectively—as well as a fluvial sediment sampling station within the CA. Since installation, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, precipitation, solar radiation, barometric pressure, soil temperature, volumetric soil moisture content, and airborne particulate concentrations have been collected at both meteorological stations. The maximum, minimum, and average or total (as appropriate) for each of these parameters were recorded for each 10-minute interval. The sediment sampling station included an automatically activated sampling pump with collection bottles for suspended sediment, which was activated when sufficient flow was present in the channel, and passive traps for bedload material that was transported down the channel during runoff events. This report presents data collected from these stations during fiscal year (FY) 2019. During the FY2019 (October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019) reporting period, the warmest month was July and the coldest month was February. Monthly total solar radiation was highest in June or July (depending on the station) and lowest in December. Monthly mean wind speeds were highest during February. At the Pu Valley North station, winds were commonly northerly, northwesterly, and southerly. At the Pu Valley South station, the wind direction was more variable and winds frequently came from most directions, excluding westerly and northwesterly winds. Winds above 15.0 miles per hour (mph) (24.1 kilometers per hour [km/hr]) were frequently southerly at both stations, and less-frequent strong winds were northerly (at the Pu Valley South station) or northwesterly (at the Pu Valley North station). Monthly average relative humidity ranged from 18 percent in August to 62 percent in January and February. Monthly total precipitation ranged from zero at both stations in September to 2.23 inches (in) (56.6 millimeters [mm]) during February at the Pu Valley South station and 2.09 in (53.1 mm) during March at the Pu Valley North station. From October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019, the total precipitation was 8.23 in (209 mm) and 8.15 in (207 mm) at the Pu Valley South and Pu Valley North stations, respectively. The largest daily precipitation totals of 1.46 in (37.1 mm) and 1.14 in (29.0 mm) occurred at the Pu Valley South and Pu Valley North stations, respectively, on March 6, 2019. However, the ISCO autosampler was not activated during any storm event in FY2019 because the channel water depth measurements were insufficient for suspended sediment sample collection. Additionally, because no significant flow through the channel was indicated, no bedload samples were collected. Light breezes of 0.0 mph to 5.0 mph (0.0 km/hr to 8.0 km/hr) occurred most frequently (approximately 55 percent to 57 percent of the time). The frequency of occurrence diminished exponentially as the wind speed increased such that winds in excess of 25.0 mph (40.2 km/hr) occurred less than 0.01 percent of the time. Winds in excess of 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr) were most commonly southerly, which is likely controlled by the topography of the valley because topographic highs define the east and west sides of the valley and converge toward the north.The concentrations of PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 micrometers [μm]) and PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤10 μm) in the air generally increase as wind speed increases. However, the particle profiler at the Pu Valley South station regularly malfunctioned, which resulted in poor data quality and a limited period of record within FY2019. Therefore, discussion of the annual dust observations is mostly limited to the Pu Valley North station. At the Pu Valley North station, significant increases in windblown dust concentrations were observed when wind speeds exceeded 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr), especially during southerly winds. When all wind speeds were considered, high dust concentrations at the Pu Valley North station were frequently associated with northerly, northwesterly, or southerly winds. The majority of PM10 transport at the Pu Valley North station occurred when winds were blowing northerly and northwesterly because of the high frequency of winds up to 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr). The ratio of PM10 to PM2.5 is a qualitative indicator of the proximity of dust sources to the observation point and the values of the PM10 to PM2.5 ratio tend to be higher nearer to the source. The PM10 to PM2.5 ratio increased from 1.2 to 2.8 with higher wind speeds at the Pu Valley North station. This increase suggests that some locally sourced PM10 was present in the air when local winds exceeded 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr). Local dust suspension is interpreted during major dust events when peaks in the PM10 to PM2.5 ratio occur simultaneously with the maximum wind speed and the peak PM10 concentration. Analysis of the five major dust events in FY2019 revealed that northerly winds were dominant in three events and southerly winds were dominant in two events. Local suspension of dust within Plutonium Valley is suspected to have occurred during two of the five major events (April 9, 2019, and September 28 to 29, 2019), and a nonlocal source of dust is presumed for the three other major dust events (October 14, 2018; May 16, 2019; and September 2, 2019). The three suspected regional dust transport events exhibited winds that typically did not exceed the 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr) wind speed threshold for local dust transport and featured PM10 to PM2.5 ratios that indicate large-scale regional dust transport. Similar event characteristics (e.g., wind speed and PM10 concentration) were observed at air monitoring stations approximately 70 mi (113 km) to the northwest within the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). Therefore, these three regional events may not reflect transport from the Plutonium Valley CA. Routine monitoring of meteorological and hydrologic parameters at Plutonium Valley has been discontinued at the request of EM NV, effective at the conclusion of FY2019. Environmental data acquisition has been completed, and both Pu Valley North and Pu Valley South meteorological stations within Plutonium Valley as well as the ISCO autosampler station within the CA were removed on October 14, 2019.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Considering Factors for Ion Concentrations in Precipitation at the Savannah River Site

Precipitation was collected from three different areas on the Savannah River Site during 2021. The precipitation was analyzed for concentrations of 29 different ions and compared with data on factors such as wind speed, wind direction, rain drop sizes, and more. The 2021 ion concentrations were also compared to the ion concentrations from previous years at the site as well as from Santee National Wildlife Refuge which is nearby. The historical ion concentrations data was gathered from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program. Scatter plots and correlation coefficients were used to identify what factors may have the greatest impact on ion concentration in rainwater. The data generally followed the same trends with a few notable outliers. There initially seemed to be a strong correlation between the mean diameter and some ion concentrations as both increased in July. However, ion concentrations in different areas were related to different wind directions, thus spatial variability must be considered. These factors, spatial variability of atmospheric particles and wind direction, impact concentrations of ions in precipitation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Identification of Climatological Representative Days in the Mid-Atlantic for High-Fidelity Offshore Wind Energy Modeling

The goal of reaching 30 GW of offshore wind energy by 2030 becomes more realistic with the continued approval of offshore wind energy areas by the Biden Administration. In the Mid-Atlantic, where wind energy projects are in the most advanced stages of development, there is increased research focus on the eventual interaction of these wind farms. These interactions, in the form of wakes and cluster wakes, or wakes from multiple wind farms, could have detrimental effects on power production and forecastability for downwind wind farms (Pryor et al. 2022, Golbazi et al. 2022, Rosencrans et al. 2023). To help alleviate these issues, numerical simulations in the form of numerical weather prediction (NWP) and large eddy simulations (LES) can provide insight into when cluster wake situations may occur, but running such simulations can be expensive and difficult to run for multiple years. In this study, we leverage and build upon existing techniques in the literature (Fischereit et al. 2022) to identify climatologically representative days for wind energy areas in the Mid-Atlantic where conditions would promote cluster wake situations. We select meteorological variables (wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, boundary-layer height, TKE) critical to understanding wind energy production and wake propagation. We then consider two different NWP datasets of varying spatial and temporal resolution: ERA5 provides data at hourly intervals from 1940 to present at 0.25 deg (31 km) spatial resolution (Hersbach et al. 2020), and the NOW-23 dataset provides data at 5-minute resolution for 21 years at 2-km spatial resolution (Bodini et al. 2020). Our first step is to compare these two datasets for an overlapping 21-year time period. Initial results show that the required number of days to represent the long-term climate increases with each additional variable considered. In their study of the German Bight, Fischereit et al. (2022) found that they could represent the long-term wind and wave climate in a "near-perfect" way with -180 days, by reaching a Perkins Skill Score (PSS) of 0.9; our investigation of the mid-Atlantic wind resource region with ERA5 and NOW-23 data suggests that we will need -100 days to reach a PSS of 0.9. As we expand our parameter space to include multiple variables, the number of required days will likely grow. These results will ultimately be used to select case studies to best represent cluster wake conditions that apply to this region for the lifetime of likely wind farms in this mid-Atlantic region.

clusterwakes↗
DOE OSTI2026

WINDPROF: Merged Best-Estimate Wind Profile Data – Nantucket (WFIP3 Campaign)

WINDPROF provides 10-minute wind and turbulence profiles that integrate scanning Doppler lidars, a profiling lidar, a 915 MHz radar wind profiler, and a sonic anemometer across Northeast U.S. coastal and offshore sites during the WFIP3 campaign. Variables include wind speed, wind direction, vertical velocity, turbulence intensity, and turbulent kinetic energy, each with per-instrument quality control and inter-instrument agreement validation. Profiles are mapped to a standardized height grid – a dedicated near-surface level at the sonic measurement height (5 m AGL), 20 m spacing to 100 m, and 30 m spacing above – and carry component and derived uncertainty estimates. Heights are reported above ground level; the site's ground elevation is stored separately. The Nantucket dataset covers 1 February 2024 – 8 September 2025.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

WINDPROF: Merged Best-Estimate Wind Profile Data – Block Island (WFIP3 Campaign)

WINDPROF provides 10-minute wind and turbulence profiles that integrate a scanning Doppler lidar, a profiling lidar, a 915 MHz radar wind profiler, and a surface met station across Northeast U.S. coastal and offshore sites during the WFIP3 campaign. Variables include wind speed, wind direction, vertical velocity, turbulence intensity, and turbulent kinetic energy, each with per-instrument quality control and inter-instrument agreement validation. Profiles are mapped to a standardized height grid – a dedicated near-surface level at the 10 m surface-wind height, 20 m spacing to 100 m, and 30 m spacing above – and carry component and derived uncertainty estimates. Heights are reported above ground level; the site's ground elevation is stored separately. The Block Island dataset covers 1 February 2024 – 8 September 2025.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

WINDPROF: Merged Best-Estimate Wind Profile Data – Cape Cod (WFIP3 Campaign)

WINDPROF provides 10-minute wind and turbulence profiles that integrate a scanning Doppler lidar, a profiling Doppler lidar, and two sonic anemometers across Northeast U.S. coastal and offshore sites during the WFIP3 campaign. Variables include wind speed, wind direction, vertical velocity, turbulence intensity, and turbulent kinetic energy, each with per-instrument quality control and inter-instrument agreement validation. Profiles are mapped to a standardized height grid – dedicated near-surface levels at the sonic measurement heights (4 m and 10 m AGL), 20 m spacing to 100 m, and 30 m spacing above – and carry component and derived uncertainty estimates. Heights are reported above ground level; the site's ground elevation is stored separately. The Cape Cod dataset covers 1 February 2024 – 6 September 2025.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

WINDPROF: Merged Best-Estimate Wind Profile Data – Rhode Island (WFIP3 Campaign)

WINDPROF provides 10-minute wind and turbulence profiles that integrate a scanning Doppler lidar, a continuous-wave profiling lidar, and a sonic anemometer across Northeast U.S. coastal and offshore sites during the WFIP3 campaign. Variables include wind speed, wind direction, vertical velocity, turbulence intensity, and turbulent kinetic energy, each with per-instrument quality control and inter-instrument agreement validation. Profiles are mapped to a standardized height grid – a dedicated near-surface level at the sonic measurement height (4 m AGL), 20 m spacing to 100 m, and 30 m spacing above – and carry component and derived uncertainty estimates. Heights are reported above ground level; the site's ground elevation is stored separately. The Rhode Island dataset covers 7 February 2024 – 4 September 2025.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Key Environmental and Ecological Variables of Wetland CH 4 and CO 2 Fluxes Change With Warming

Wetlands are important ecosystems for the global carbon cycle, impacting regional and global methane (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) budgets. This study examines how environmental and ecological variables impact wetland CH 4 flux and net ecosystem exchange of CO 2 (NEE) across 17 sites globally. We also quantified the importance of variables for each wetland type and site at monthly scale under normal and warm temperatures using dominance analysis. We identified soil and air temperature (TS, TA, respectively) as key variables influencing wetland CH4, and latent heat (LE) and shortwave radiation (SW) for NEE under normal and warm conditions. However, the importance of some variables shifted with warming. For predicting the variability of wetland CH4 flux under warming, gross primary productivity (GPP) and LE, replacing wind direction (WD), were dominant variables for tropical swamps, while NEE was important for high-latitude fens and bogs under warm temperatures. For wetland NEE, the role of TA and TS decreased across all wetland types with warming, while vapor pressure deficit (VPD) became more important for mid and high-latitude wetlands. Our results reveal the complex responses of wetland carbon flux to environmental and ecological variables with warming and provide new insights into improving wetland models by incorporating additional variables and accounting for the changing roles of variables in carbon flux under warming.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Probabilistic Day-Ahead Forecasting Using an Analog Ensemble Approach for Wind Farm Grid Services

Wind resource assessment and wind power forecasting are used in research and industry to anticipate future power output at scales ranging from individual wind turbines to entire wind farms. Probabilistic day-ahead wind forecasting is useful for anticipating how a wind farm could potentially participate in the day-ahead market by providing upper and lower bounds for expected power generation, thus informing grid operators of its uncertainty. Understanding this uncertainty is part of a larger project focused on building a platform that combines efforts in weather forecasting, aerodynamic and economic modeling to create maximum value of a wind plant to better provide services to the grid. This effort is also known as the Atmosphere to Electrons to Grid (A2E2G) project. One method for producing a probabilistic forecast is through the analog ensemble approach (Delle Monache et al., 2011). This method leverages historical forecasts and their corresponding observations as a training data set from which future forecasts can be made. For some future forecast, the most similar historical forecasts (analogs) are identified on a regular time basis such as once per a 3-hour window. The most similar analogs, based on a metric such as root mean square error (RMSE), are recorded and their corresponding verifying observations are used as an ensemble member for this future forecast. Prior work in this area demonstrates improvements over raw Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) forecasts and shows skill similar to techniques such as logistic regression and machine learning (Delle Monache et al., 2013; Alessandrini et al., 2015). Here, we take the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh model (HRRR) day-ahead forecast (0-36 hours) to create a probabilistic day-ahead forecast using an analog ensemble approach. The HRRR has an hourly temporal resolution, with a spatial resolution of 3 km. The 12 UTC HRRR model run is downloaded every day for one year from August 2019 - July 2020, with the first 11 months serving as a bank of analogs from which the forecasting algorithm can create a probabilistic forecast. Once downloaded, the original HRRR forecast is temporally interpolated to 5-minutes, aligning with both the temporal resolution of the observations as well as the timescale relevant for day-ahead power forecasts. The forecast is validated at the M2 tower at the Flatirons Campus of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at a typical wind turbine height of 80 m. Variables such as wind speed, wind direction, and turbulence intensity are incorporated into the probabilistic forecast model and weighted according to their relative importance to the forecast. Based on metrics such as mean bias error (MBE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean square error, the analog ensemble forecast outperforms the raw HRRR forecast during the testing period of July 2020. Figure 1 illustrates an example day-ahead forecast compared against the verifying observations. The general variability and ramps are captured throughout the day, with potential to further improve the analog ensemble model through machine learning techniques.

numerical weather prediction↗
DOE OSTI2026

Short‐Term Hourly Weather Forecasting Using PredRNN With Image Preprocessing

Global weather forecast models are vital tools with numerous applications, including public safety, agriculture, and transportation. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) have shown the potential to enhance weather forecasting accuracy and speed. In this study, we developed a short-term hourly weather forecast framework with a wavelet transform function for data preprocessing and a spatiotemporal DL model, PredRNN, for predicting five surface atmospheric variables, including wind speed and direction, mean sea level pressure (MSLP), temperature, and precipitation. The framework demonstrated promising results. It produces global forecasts at 0.25° (∼25 km) with a 1-day lead time RMSE of 1.8 m/s for wind components, 180 Pa for MSLP, and 1.8 K for temperature. Although our model does not surpass state-of-the-art AI weather forecast models across all metrics, it outperforms these models in precipitation forecasting and wind prediction at short lead times and achieves comparable accuracy for MSLP. Its native hourly forecasting capability, together with training on widely accessible GPU hardware, contributes meaningfully to the advancement of accessible DL weather forecasting methods. Our work highlights the importance of integrating temporal components and data transformation techniques to improve the predictability and accuracy of weather forecasts.

Tran, Hoang [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sounding System / Raw Data

This dataset contains twice or four times daily radiosonde observations of the atmosphere from the quarterly LTER ship transects. Variables include atmospheric pressure, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, north wind speed, and east wind speed. Note that variables are a function of height.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sounding System / Raw Data

This dataset contains twice or four times daily radiosonde observations of the atmosphere at the Woods Hole weather station. Variables include atmospheric pressure, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, north wind speed, and east wind speed. Note that variables are a function of height.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Atmospheric Variability Drives Anomalies in the Bering Sea Air–Sea Heat Exchange

Abstract High latitudes, including the Bering Sea, are experiencing unprecedented rates of change. Long-term Bering Sea warming trends have been identified, and marine heatwaves (MHWs), event-scale elevated sea surface temperature (SST) extremes, have also increased in frequency and longevity in recent years. Recent work has shown that variability in air–sea coupling plays a dominant role in driving Bering Sea upper-ocean thermal variability and that surface forcing has driven an increase in the occurrence of positive ocean temperature anomalies since 2010. In this work, we characterize the drivers of the anomalous surface air–sea heat fluxes in the Bering Sea over the period 2010–22 using ERA5 fields. We show that the surface turbulent heat flux dominates the net surface heat flux variability from September to April and is primarily a result of near-surface air temperature and specific humidity anomalies. The airmass anomalies that account for the majority of the turbulent heat flux variability are a function of wind direction, with southerly (northerly) wind advecting anomalously warm (cool), moist (dry) air over the Bering Sea, resulting in positive (negative) surface turbulent flux anomalies. During the remaining months of the year, anomalies in the surface radiative fluxes account for the majority of the net surface heat flux variability and are a result of anomalous cloud coverage, anomalous lower-tropospheric virtual temperature, and sea ice coverage variability. Our results indicate that atmospheric variability drives much of the Bering Sea upper-ocean temperature variability through the mediation of the surface heat fluxes during the analysis period. Significance Statement A long-term ocean warming trend and a recent increase in marine heatwaves in the Bering Sea have been identified. Previous work showed that anomalies in the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere were the primary driver of Bering Sea temperature variability, but the processes responsible for the heat exchange anomalies were unknown. In this work, we show that the atmosphere is the primary driver of anomalies in the Bering Sea air–sea heat exchange and therefore plays an important role in altering the thermal state of the Bering Sea. Our results highlight the importance of understanding more about how the ocean and the atmosphere interact at high latitudes and how this relationship will be affected by future climate change.

Hayden, Emily E. [a College of Earth, Ocean, and A↗