The evaluation of reanalysis and analysis data (estimated data) against in-situ measured data is essential to find uncertainties before its use for wind resource assessment. The performance evaluation of four different generations reanalysis datasets (NCEP-CFSR, NCEP-DOE, NCEP-NCAR and JRA-55) and two analysis datasets (NCEP-FNL and NCEP-GFS) was done against measured data for six sites using statistical analysis. A comparison of monthly mean time-series, Weibull probability distribution function and wind rose diagram of measured and estimated data was performed. The MBE and RMSE for wind speed range from −2.18 to 2.01 m/s and 1.34 to 3.00 m/s respectively; whereas MBE and RMSE for wind direction range from −34.34° to 13.90° and 40.58° to 71.28° respectively for six sites using all datasets. NCEP-CFSR data show promising results for most of the sites with the lowest errors and better correlation coefficients. NCEP-CFSR data being the new generation reanalysis having higher spatial resolution show better results compared to other reanalyses and analyses. The reanalysis and analysis wind data can be used as alternative to measured data to assess wind energy potential.
IEA. Global Energy Review 2021-Assessing the effects of economic recoveries on global energy demand and CO2 emissions in 2021. 2021.
4.
IRENA. Renewable power generation costs in 2020. 2020. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
5.
McKennaRPfenningerSHeinrichsH, et al. High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: a review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs. Renewable Energy2022; 182: 659–684
MurthyKSRRahiOP. A comprehensive review of wind resource assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017; 72: 1320–1342
8.
JungCTaubertDSchindlerD. The temporal variability of global wind energy – long-term trends and inter-annual variability. Energy Convers Manag2019; 188: 462–472
9.
RisienCMCheltonDB. A satellite-derived climatology of global ocean winds. Remote Sens Environ2006; 105: 221–236
10.
ESMAP. Wind resource mapping in Pakistan: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2016. Energy sector management assistance program. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2016.
11.
TrenberthKEDoleRXueY, et al.Atmospheric reanalyses: a major resource for ocean product development and modeling. Proc”. OceanObs2010; 9.
12.
KistlerRKalnayECollinsW, et al.The NCEP–NCAR 50-year reanalysis: monthly means CD-ROM and documentation. Bull Am Meteorol Soc2001; 82: 247–268.
13.
SahaSMoorthiSPanH-L, et al.The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2010; 91: 1015–1058.
14.
KobayashiSOtaYHaradaY, et al.The JRA-55 reanalysis: general specifications and basic characteristics. Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan Ser II2015; 93: 5–48.
15.
SharpEDoddsPBarrettM, et al.Evaluating the accuracy of CFSR reanalysis hourly wind speed forecasts for the UK, using in situ measurements and geographical information. Renewable Energy2015; 77: 527–538DOI: .
16.
SmithSRLeglerDMVerzoneKV. Quantifying uncertainties in NCEP reanalyses using high-quality research vessel observations. J Clim2001; 14: 4062–4072.. <4062:quinru>2.0.co;2.
17.
RutiPMarulloSD’OrtenzioF, et al.Comparison of analyzed and measured wind speeds in the perspective of oceanic simulations over the Mediterranean basin: Analyses, QuikSCAT and buoy data.J Mar Syst2008; 70: 33–48.
18.
GholamiSGhaderSKhaleghi-ZavarehH, et al.Sensitivity of WRF-simulated 10 m wind over the Persian gulf to different boundary conditions and PBL parameterization schemes. Atmos Res2021; 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105147.
19.
CarvalhoDRochaAGómez-GesteiraM. Ocean surface wind simulation forced by different reanalyses: Comparison with observed data along the Iberian Peninsula coast. Ocean Model 2012; 56: 31–42.
20.
CarvalhoDRochaAGómez-GesteiraM, et al.Comparison of reanalyzed, analyzed, satellite-retrieved and NWP modelled winds with buoy data along the Iberian Peninsula coastRemote Sens Environ2014; 152: 480–492
21.
CarvalhoDRochaAGómez-GesteiraM, et al.WRF Wind simulation and wind energy production estimates forced by different reanalyses: comparison with observed data for Portugal. Appl Energy2014; 117: 116–126
22.
AbderrahimBCroize-FillonDQueffeulouP, et al.Evaluation of high-resolution surface wind products at global and regional scales. J Oper Oceanogr2018; 2: 15–27.
23.
MiaoHDongDHuangG, et al.Evaluation of northern hemisphere surface wind speed and wind power density in multiple reanalysis datasets. Energy 2020; 117382.
24.
JonesRRenfrewIOrrA, et al.Evaluation of four global reanalysis products using in situ observations in the amundsen Sea embayment. Antarctica2016; 121: 6240–6257.
25.
KumarRStallardTStansbyPK. Assessment of WRF prediction of velocity profile and turbulence intensity by comparison to field measurement. In: The 27th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference 2017, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
TahirZURSarfrazMSAsimM, et al. Evaluation of ERA-interim and NCEP-CFSR reanalysis datasets against in-situ measured wind speed data for keti bandar port, Pakistan. J Phys Conf Ser2018; 1102: 012001. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1102/1/012001.
41.
MahmoodiNMAbdiJTaghizadehM, et al.Activated carbon/metal-organic framework nanocomposite: preparation and photocatalytic dye degradation mathematical modeling from wastewater by least squares support vector machine. J Environ Manag2019; 233: 660–672
42.
NagababuG. KachhwahaSSSavsaniVJE. Estimation of technical and economic potential of offshore wind along the coast of India. Energy2017; 138: 79–91.
43.
TahirRAsimMHussainA, et al. Comparing MERRA and MERRA-2 reanalysis datasets with mast measured wind data for karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences2020; 26.
44.
FarrugiaPSMicallefA. Comparative analysis of estimators for wind direction standard deviation. Meteorological Applications2006; 13: 29–41. 2006/02/22. DOI: 10.1017/S1350482705001982.
45.
ErdemEShiJ. ARMA Based approaches for forecasting the tuple of wind speed and direction. Appl Energy2011; 88: 1405–1414
46.
ChawlaASpindlerDMTolmanHL. Validation of a thirty year wave hindcast using the climate forecast system reanalysis winds. Ocean Modelling2013; 70: 189–206.
47.
LiuHTianH-qPanD-f, et al. Forecasting models for wind speed using wavelet, wavelet packet, time series and artificial neural networks. Appl Energy2013; 107: 191–208.
48.
OzgenerL. Investigation of wind energy potential of muradiye in manisa, Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2010; 14: 3232–3236.
49.
KennedyADDongXXiB, et al.A comparison of MERRA and NARR reanalyses with the DOE ARM SGP data. J Clim2011; 24: 4541–4557.
50.
CarvalhoDRochaAGómez-GesteiraM, et al. A sensitivity study of the WRF model in wind simulation for an area of high wind energy. Environ Model Softw2012; 33: 23−34.
51.
CarvalhoDRochaAGómez-GesteiraM, et al. Offshore wind energy resource simulation forced by different reanalyses: comparison with observed data in the Iberian Peninsula. Appl Energy2014; 134: 57–64.
52.
KubikMBrayshawDJCokerPJ, et al.Exploring the role of reanalysis data in simulating regional wind generation variability over northern Ireland. Renewable Energy2013; 57: 558–561.
53.
RatjiranukoolPRatjiranukoolS. Evaluating wind speed by WRF model over northern Thailand. Energy Procedia2017; 138: 1171–1176DOI: .
54.
TahirRAsimMJamilS, et al. Comparison of reanalysis, analysis and forecast datasets with measured wind data for a wind power project in jhimpir, Pakistan. J Phys Conf Ser2018; 1102: 012004.
Al-AbbadiNRehmanS. Wind speed and wind power characteristics for Gassim, Saudi Arabia. Int J Green Energy2009; 6(2): 201–217.
57.
Obando MontañoA. An approach to determine the weibull parameters for wind energy analysis: the case of galicia (Spain). Energies2014; 7(4): 2676−2700.
58.
AukitinoTKhanMGAhmedMRJEC, et al. Wind energy resource assessment for Kiribati with a comparison of different methods of determining weibull parameters. Energy Convers Manag2017; 151: 641–660.
59.
CarvalhoDRochaAGómez-GesteiraM, et al. Offshore wind energy resource simulation forced by different reanalyses: comparison with observed data in the Iberian Peninsula. Appl Energy2014; 134: 57–64.
60.
Azorin-MolinaCRehmanSGuijarroJA, et al. Recent trends in wind speed across Saudi Arabia, 1978–2013: A break in the stilling. Int J Climatol2018; 38: e966−e984.
61.
GuoHXuMHuQJIJoC. Changes in near-surface wind speed in China: 1969–2005. Int J Climatol2011; 31: 349−358.
62.
VautardRCattiauxJYiouP, et al.Northern hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness. Nat Geosci2010; 3: 756–761.
63.
FuGYuJZhangY, et al. Temporal variation of wind speed in China for 1961–2007. Theor Appl Climatol2011; 104: 313−324.
64.
Kirchner-BossiNGarcía-HerreraRPrietoL, et al. A long-term perspective of wind power output variability. Int J Climatol2015; 35: 2635–2646.
65.
TorralbaVDoblas-ReyesFJGonzalez-ReviriegoNJERL. Uncertainty in recent near-surface wind speed trends: a global reanalysis intercomparison. Environ Res Lett2017; 12.
