energies

Article
Prediction of Power Generation by Offshore Wind
Farms Using Multiple Data Sources
Cheng-Dar Yue 1, *, Che-Chih Liu 2 , Chien-Cheng Tu 3 and Ta-Hui Lin 2,3
1 Department of Landscape Architecture, National Chiayi University, No. 300, Syuefu Rd., Chiayi 600, Taiwan
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road,
Tainan City 701, Taiwan; [email protected] (C.-C.L.); [email protected] (T.-H.L.)
3 Research Center for Energy Technology and Strategy, National Cheng Kung University, No. 25,
Xiaodong Rd., North Dist., Tainan City 704, Taiwan; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886-5-271-7763




Received: 19 December 2018; Accepted: 20 February 2019; Published: 21 February 2019


Abstract: In this study we evaluated the wind resources of wind farms in the Changhua offshore
area of Taiwan. The offshore wind farm in Zone of Potential (ZoP) 26 was optimized through an
economic evaluation. The annual energy production (AEP) of the offshore wind farm in ZoP 26 was
predicted for 10 and 25 years with probabilities of 50%, 75%, and 90% by using measured mast data,
measure-correlate-predict (MCP) data derived from Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research
and Applications (MERRA), and Central Weather Bureau (CWB) data. When the distance between
the turbines in a wind farm was decreased from 12D to 6D, the turbine number increased from 53 to
132, while the capacity factor decreased slightly from 48.6% to 47.6%. MCP data derived from the
inland CWB station with similar levels of wind resources can be used to accurately predict the power
generation of the target offshore wind farm. The use of MCP with mast data as target data, together
with CWB and MERRA data as reference data, proved to be a feasible method for predicting offshore
wind power generation in places where a mast is available in a neighboring area.

Keywords: meteorological mast; MERRA; weather station data; WindSim; measure-correlate-predict;

offshore wind farm optimization

1. Introduction
Offshore wind energy is regarded as the backbone that can replace domestic nuclear energy and
fossil fuels according to national energy policy of Taiwan. This policy is justified by the fact that the
Taiwan Strait has excellent potential for wind energy generation. According to 4C Offshore, 25 projects
exist with a 10-year mean wind speed higher than 12 m/s for a hub height of 100 m, and most such
projects are located in the Taiwan Strait [1].
Over the past 20 years, a number of methodologies have been developed to evaluate offshore
wind resources. Because of the difficulty of measurement campaigns in offshore areas, the measured
wind data for a targeted wind farm often cover only 1 year or even a shorter time. Such limited
data sets cannot characterize long-term wind resources. An alternative approach known as measure,
correlate, predict (MCP) has been developed to sample long-term wind data at the site of a targeted
wind farm. MCP is typically used to relate and adjust on-site measurements to a set of long-term
reference data. This process has been widely used in wind energy research [2], and has become crucial
for evaluating regional wind potential at sites that lack local long-term wind data.
The Weibull distribution is widely used as a basis for wind resource evaluation. It is a
mathematical function that can represent the wind speed frequency distribution at a site. In the
Weibull distribution, the probability density (frequency distribution) represents the number of times

Energies 2019, 12, 700; doi:10.3390/en12040700 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 700 2 of 24

in the period of record that the observed speed falls within particular ranges [3]. The speed bins are
typically 0.5 or 1 m/s wide and span at least the range of speeds defined for the turbine power curve
from 0 to 25 m/s and above. It is usually presented in reports as a bar chart covering all directions.
A study examined the accuracy of Weibull distribution using observation data from three weather
stations on three islands near Hong Kong over a period of six years. The result indicated that Weibull
distribution had accurately represented the real offshore wind speed frequency [4].
The capacity factor is often used to assess wind resources at a given site. It is the energy delivered
during a period of time expressed as a fraction of the energy that would have been supplied if the plant
had operated at its rated capacity. The annual capacity factor is the energy generated during the year
(MWh) divided by wind farm rated power (MW) multiplied by the number of hours in the year [5].
Capacity factors are also affected by the efficiency of the turbine and its suitability for its particular
location [6]. High capacity factors indicate efficient utilization of the generator. The capacity factor
is affected by the wind conditions and the turbine’s swept area. A small turbine usually generates
relatively low power for high wind speed because of the short length of its blades. Conversely, a large
turbine generates more power for a high speed but its cut-in speed is larger than that of a small turbine.
With advances in technology, the capacity factor of Anholt 1 offshore wind farm in Denmark reached
52.8%. The average capacity factor of offshore wind farms in Denmark is 41.9% [7].
For the optimization of offshore wind farm layout, proposed optimization schemes generally
prioritize costs [8]. A study proposed a method of evaluating the net present value of all costs,
including initial, construction, operation and maintenance, and retirement costs, and the revenue
from selling the produced energy on a life-cycle basis; the Weibull distribution, wind rose, and energy
production loss caused by wake loss effects were included in that assessment [9].
Currently, typical wind resource evaluations are mainly based on historical weather observations,
numerical simulation, satellite-based remote sensing, and reanalysis of data [10]. Historical
observations refer to using instruments to measure wind speed and wind direction to characterize
the wind resources of a specific site. A problem with this type of evaluation is the limited observation
range. Pimenta et al. [11] used both weather observation data and satellite data sets to evaluate the
location, seasonal timing, and availability of wind power resources for the southern coast of Brazil.
Meteorological stations measure directly at a high time resolution but low spatial resolution and allow
for validation and adjustment of satellite data, whereas satellite data provide near-complete spatial
coverage at a lower time resolution.
To overcome the costs and inconveniences of surface-based wind monitoring systems,
software-based numerical simulations of microscale wind resources have been developed. Some widely
used simulation tools are WAsP, MM5, MesoMap, Site Wind, TAPM, and WEST [10]. Researchers
mostly apply integrated model systems to evaluate wind energy resources; such systems are composed
of a mesoscale meteorological numerical model, usually the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)
model or MM5, and a complex-terrain dynamic diagnosis model, usually the California Meteorological
Model or Advanced Regional Prediction System [12]. Salvação and Soares [13] used the WRF model
to evaluate the offshore wind resources on the Iberian Atlantic coast. A 10-year wind hindcast was
simulated with the WRF model at 9 and 3 km of spatial resolution and 6-hourly output. These
simulation tools can evaluate wind resources rapidly and economically. However, the selection of
boundary conditions and parameters can lead to inaccurate conclusions that bear little resemblance to
real situations. Over the past 20 years, software for evaluating wind energy has improved enormously;
such software now offers computational fluid dynamics (CFD), finite element analysis, and numerical
modeling. Such simulations involve wind farm siting, wind farm modeling, prediction, and other
items [14].
Satellite-based remote sensing systems have been developed to gather information about the
Earth. This type of measurement can monitor the Earth on a long-term and large-scale basis without
being restricted by terrain. During 2004–2006, the Risø National Laboratory in Denmark and several
other research institutions conducted the SAT-WIND research program and confirmed the potential
Energies 2019, 12, 700 3 of 24

of applying satellite-derived data, including surface wind distribution data derived from passive
microwave remote sensors, altimeters, scatterometers, and synthetic aperture radars (SARs), to offshore
wind energy resource evaluation. The results showed that it was feasible to evaluate offshore wind
energy resources using satellite-derived wind speed distributions. Charlotte et al. [15] used ocean
surface wind speed data derived from SARs to study wind energy resources over the Baltic Sea.
They compared the wind speed data derived from SARs with observational surface wind speed data
and found that the SARs exhibited higher accuracy. However, such measurements are limited by
(1) low time resolution (e.g., 14 of 17 satellites in the Danish SAT-WIND project record observations
less than once a day); (2) low horizontal resolution, with a general satellite data resolution of 25 km
× 25 km, except for SARs achieving finer spatial resolution; (3) low accuracy (e.g., wind speeds
estimated by QuikSCAT satellite-based remote sensing are overestimated with an average deviation of
1.00–3.63 m/s); (4) and few options for height of observations (wind flow at 10 m may be provided by
satellites that cannot depict wind flows at different heights) [3,10].
Various reanalysis data sets have been developed to provide high quality, long time scales,
and regular grid points. In the mid-1990s, the US National Center for Environmental Prediction
(NCEP) collaborated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to develop the
first-generation reanalysis data product NCEP-R1 [16]. The European Center for Medium-range
Weather Forecast (ECMWF) subsequently published its first-generation reanalysis data product,
ERA-15. The NCEP and ECMWF launched their second- and third-generation reanalysis data products
during the 2000s [17–19].
Reanalysis data sets are created using historical weather observations to drive a global or regional
NWP model. From these model runs, weather parameters are extracted for every grid point and every
level in the model. Reanalysis data sets are created to support climate studies. Through statistical
analysis of 10-m NCEP/DOE Reanalysis wind data from 1979–2010, Chadee and Clarke [20] derived
a regional annual wind resource map, which showed that the Caribbean low-level jet region was an
area with superb wind power density. They also identified the eastern Caribbean and the Netherlands
Antilles as locations with excellent wind energy resources.
Reanalysis data have a number of positive attributes, including convenience, multiple levels
and types of weather parameters, and a long data record. Because the gridded data are available
for everywhere covered by the model, it is easy to locate suitable grid points. This eliminates much
work searching for surface weather stations and data sets, and it provides a common data source for
all MCP studies. In parts of the world where surface weather observations are unreliable, reanalysis
data may be the only feasible source of reference data for MCP. However, reanalysis data also have
significant disadvantages and must be used with caution. First, the correlation of the reanalysis of
winds with tower observations depends on the complexity of the terrain and the resolution of the
reanalysis model. The NCEP/NCAR global reanalysis data set is relatively coarse, with a resolution
of about 2◦ in latitude and longitude (slightly over 200 km) and thus may provide poor results in
mountainous terrain, at coastal boundaries, and in other places where sharp wind gradients exist.
More importantly, the homogeneity of reanalysis data is limited by that of the observational system
used to drive the model; observational systems have changed dramatically over the decades. The bulk
of the weather observations in the 1950s and 1960s came from weather balloons supplemented by land-
and ship-based surface observations. Weather satellites became increasingly important in the 1970s
and 1980s, decades that were marked also by a large increase in the frequency of weather observations
from both surface and radiosonde stations [11].
Concerning the evaluation software of wind energy, the first WAsP developed has been widely
used in wind energy research. Measured wind data were used on the Turkish west coast from 1975 to
1984 to estimate wind resources using WAsP [21]. Another study evaluated wind conditions in the
Danish offshore area of the Baltic Sea using WAsP and two measurement stations on Lolland Island.
The result indicated that the WAsP simulation roughly conformed to wind conditions, except that its
prediction slightly overestimated wind speed [22]. A study combined ArcGIS with WAsP to estimate
Energies 2019, 12, 700 4 of 24

wind resource distribution using ArcGIS to overlay WAsP’s estimates of the average wind speed and
power density on a map of the studied region to determine the most suitable sites for installing wind
turbines [23].
4 Energies
To reduce the deviation of wind resource evaluation caused by complex terrain, researchers have
To reduce
used CFD the deviation
for relatively accurate ofsimulation.
wind resource evaluation
The most widelycaused by complexsoftware
used CFD-based terrain, products
researchersfor
have used CFD for relatively accurate simulation. The most widely used
wind farm design are Meteodyn WT and WindSim. A study used mesoscale wind data and Meteodyn CFD-based software
products for wind farm design are Meteodyn WT and WindSim. A study used mesoscale wind data
WT to evaluate the wind conditions on Phaluay Island in Thailand with a spatial resolution of 90 m ×
and Meteodyn WT to evaluate the wind conditions on Phaluay Island in Thailand with a spatial
90 m. The result accurately conformed to the mesoscale wind data [24]. Another study used Meteodyn
resolution of 90 m × 90 m. The result accurately conformed to the mesoscale wind data [24]. Another
WT to evaluate a wind farm on complex terrain. The result indicated that the wind resource evaluation
study used Meteodyn WT to evaluate a wind farm on complex terrain. The result indicated that the
of Meteodyn WT roughly conformed to measured data, but the simulation of extreme wind speed was
wind resource evaluation of Meteodyn WT roughly conformed to measured data, but the simulation
relatively conservative [25]. WindSim can solve nonlinear equations of mass, momentum and energy;
of extreme wind speed was relatively conservative [25]. WindSim can solve nonlinear equations of
thus, it can simulate places with complex terrain and complex local climatic conditions. Researchers
mass, momentum and energy; thus, it can simulate places with complex terrain and complex local
built more than 120 terrain models from data of heights and roughness covering the Norwegian coast
climatic conditions. Researchers built more than 120 terrain models from data of heights and
from southern Lindesnes to the northern boundary with Russia and subsequently used WindSim to
roughness covering the Norwegian coast from southern Lindesnes to the northern boundary with
evaluate wind resources on the Norwegian coast [26]. According to a number of scientific research
Russia and subsequently used WindSim to evaluate wind resources on the Norwegian coast [26].
studies and practical engineering experiments, CFD-based calculation software can simulate wind
According to a number of scientific research studies and practical engineering experiments, CFD-
resources more accurately than WAsP [27–29].
based calculation software can simulate wind resources more accurately than WAsP [27–29].
The accuracy with which a wind farm’s power generation can be estimated and predicted deeply
The accuracy with which a wind farm’s power generation can be estimated and predicted deeply
influences
influencesthethefinancial
financialevaluation
evaluation ofof the
the wind
wind farm
farm under
under consideration. Untilnow,
consideration. Until now,because
becauseof ofthe
the
inconvenience of wind measurement in offshore areas, wind companies have
inconvenience of wind measurement in offshore areas, wind companies have mostly used mast and mostly used mast and
LiDAR
LiDARmethods
methodsto togather
gather wind
wind data.
data. However,
However, in in some
some offshore
offshore areas,
areas, itit is
is difficult
difficult for
for aa LiDAR
LiDAR
installation
installation to survive extreme weather conditions long enough to gather representative datawind
to survive extreme weather conditions long enough to gather representative data for for
resource evaluation.
wind resource Considering
evaluation. that the
Considering offshore
that Zone ofZone
the offshore Potential (ZoP) 26
of Potential wind
(ZoP) 26farm
windoffarm
Taiwanof
will be exploited
Taiwan in the future,
will be exploited infuture,
in the the present
in thestudy,
presentwestudy,
aim toweevaluate wind resources
aim to evaluate and optimize
wind resources and
the designthe
optimize of the ZoPof26the
design wind
ZoPfarm by using
26 wind farm data fromdata
by using mast, Modern-Era
from Retrospective
mast, Modern-Era Analysis
Retrospective
for Research and Applications (MERRA), and weather stations. First, the power
Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA), and weather stations. First, the power generation generation potential
ofpotential
the ZoPof 26the
wind
ZoPfarm is estimated
26 wind (Figure 1).
farm is estimated Second,
(Figure the number
1). Second, of turbines
the number in thein
of turbines target wind
the target
farm is optimized based on economic analysis. Finally, the probability of prediction
wind farm is optimized based on economic analysis. Finally, the probability of prediction of annual of annual energy
production (AEP) is (AEP)
energy production evaluated based onbased
is evaluated the estimated uncertainty.
on the estimated uncertainty.

Terrain
Short-term
measured data Energy Probability of
MCP WindSim Wind farm
production and energy generation
Long-term optimization
wake loss (P50) prediction (P75,P90)
reference data
Turbine
parameters Uncertainty

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flowchart of this study.

2.2.Materials
Materialsand
andMethods
Methods

2.1.
2.1.Measurement
MeasurementSetup
Setup
The
Themeasurement
measurementlocations
locationsconsidered
consideredininthethepresent
presentstudy
studyare
areininthe
theChanghua
Changhuanearshore
nearshoreareaareaof
Taiwan (Figure
of Taiwan 2). The
(Figure Taipower
2). The mastmast
Taipower is located 6 km6 from
is located the coast.
km from The The
the coast. height of the
height ofTaipower mast
the Taipower
ismast
95 misabove
95 m above sea level, and the depth is 15 m below sea level (Figure 3). The height of theis
sea level, and the depth is 15 m below sea level (Figure 3). The height of the platform
19platform
m aboveissea ◦ , 150◦ , and 270◦ .
19 level.
m aboveThree
seabooms stretchbooms
level. Three out from the mast
stretch alongthe
out from themast
directions
along of
the30directions of 30°,
Considering the characteristics of wind resources in Taiwan with the northeast monsoon
150°, and 270°. Considering the characteristics of wind resources in Taiwan with the northeast in winter and
southwest airflow in summer, an anemometer and a wind vane are installed on the boom at 150 ◦.
monsoon in winter and southwest airflow in summer, an anemometer and a wind vane are installed
on the boom at 150°.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 5 of 24
Energies
Energies 5 5

Figure2.2.Locations
Figure Locationsofofwind
windfarm
farmin
inZoP
ZoP26,
26,Taipower
Taipowermeteorological
meteorologicalmast,
mast,MERRA
MERRAlocations
locations 1–4,
1–4, and
and CWB
Figure stations
2. Locations
CWB stations at Lukang
of wind
at Lukang and
and farmShenggang.
in ZoP 26, Taipower meteorological mast, MERRA locations 1–4,
Shenggang.
and CWB stations at Lukang and Shenggang.

Taipoweroffshore
Figure3.3.Taipower
Figure offshoremeteorological
meteorological mast.
mast.

The
Thecup
cupanemometer
anemometer and and wind
wind vane installed on
vane installed on the
themast
mastconform
conformtotothe theIECIEC61400-12-1
61400-12-1Class
Class 1.
The permissible ambient Figure 3. Taipower
temperature range offshore
for their meteorological
operation is − mast.
50 ◦ C to 80 ◦ C. The anemometer
1. The permissible ambient temperature range for their operation is −50°C to 80°C. The anemometer
can
canmeasure
measurewind
windspeeds
speeds ofof 0.3
0.3 m/s to70
m/s to 70m/s
m/swith
withananaccuracy
accuracyofof less
less thanthan
0.20.2 m/s.
m/s. TheThe
wind wind
vanevane
The cup anemometer ◦ and wind
◦ vane installed on◦the mast conform to the IEC 61400-12-1 Class
can
canmeasure
measureangles
angles ofof 00° to 360°
360 with
withan anaccuracy
accuracyofof1°.1 .
1. The permissible ambient temperature range for their operation is −50°C to 80°C. The anemometer
The
Thedata
data measured
measured by bythese
theseinstruments
instruments werewere collected
collected withwith a data
a data loggerlogger
insideinside a container
a container on
can measure wind speeds of 0.3 m/s to 70 m/s with an accuracy of less than 0.2 m/s. The wind vane
onthe
theplatform.
platform.The signal
The was
signal wastransmitted
transmitted by by
a microwave
a microwave antenna on on
antenna the the
mast. TheThe
mast. receiver waswas
receiver
can measure angles of 0° to 360° with an accuracy of 1°.
installedononthe
installed the
roofroof of the
of the Wanggong
Wanggong substation.
substation. The The
data data
werewere
storedstored in a computer
in a computer in the
in the substation.
The dataA measured by these instruments were collected withsolar
a data logger inside
useda to
container on
Asubstation. diesel
diesel generator wasgenerator
used towas powerused tocrane.
the power the
Nine crane.
solar Nine
panels werepanels
usedwere
to supply supply
power to the
the platform. The
power to thewind signal
anemometer, was transmitted
wind vane,pressure by a
atmosphericmicrowave
pressure antenna on the mast.
gauge, thermohygrometer, The receiver
and data was
anemometer, vane, atmospheric gauge, thermohygrometer, and data logger.
installed
logger. on the roof of the Wanggong substation. The data were stored in a computer in the
substation.
2.2. DatasetsA diesel generator was used to power the crane. Nine solar panels were used to supply
power to the anemometer, wind vane, atmospheric pressure gauge, thermohygrometer, and data
2.2. Datasets
The data sources used in this study are as follows: Taipower mast, MERRA, and Central Weather
logger.
Bureau The data sources
(CWB). Ideally, used
datain sets
this study
should arespan
as follows:
at leastTaipower
1 year ofmast, MERRA, and
measurement, Central
and coverWeather
an integer
Bureau
number (CWB).
of years Ideally,
to reflectdata
thesets
fullshould span
seasonal at
cycle least
of 1
wind year of measurement,
variations. Hourly and
or cover
10-min anwind
integer
speed
2.2. Datasets
The data sources used in this study are as follows: Taipower mast, MERRA, and Central Weather
Bureau (CWB). Ideally, data sets should span at least 1 year of measurement, and cover an integer
Energies 2019, 12, 700 6 of 24

and wind direction data are usually used. The Taipower mast started its measurement campaign on
1 April 2016; therefore, data from 1 April 2016 to 1 April 2017 were used in this study. MERRA and
CWB Lukang data from 1 April 2011 to 1 April 2017, and CWB Shenggang data from 1 April 2012 to 1
April 2017 were used in this study. Although the Shenggang station began measurement in February
2011, it did not transmit data until 1 November 2011. The used data period thus starts from 2012 and
contains a full year of data. Because the MERRA and CWB data have a resolution of no more than 1 h,
hourly data from the Taipower mast, MERRA, and CWB were used in this study to ensure a consistent
resolution for all data sources.
MERRA is an analysis method designed by NASA. The MERRA dataset spans the period from
1979 through 2016. The present study used data of MERRA version 2 (MERRA-2), which was started
in 1980. MERRA and MERRA-2 are based on the GEOS-5 atmospheric data assimilation system, but
additional advances to the GEOS model and the Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation assimilation system
are included in MERRA-2. The MERRA data structures used in the present study are composed of
four grid points (Figure 2). The MERRA data were simulated at a height of 50 m.
The Central Weather Bureau (CWB) data were obtained through the Central Observation Data
Inquiry System (CODiS). The instrument used by CWB for measuring wind speed and wind direction
is a propeller-type wind anemometer. The wind direction provided by CODiS is 0◦ when the wind
speed is lower than 0.3 m/s. CODiS shows hourly wind speed data with an accuracy of one decimal
place and shows the wind direction angle as an integer value. CODiS data from the Lukang and
Shenggang stations, located at altitudes of 17 m and 24 m, respectively, were used in this study.

2.3. MCP
MCP is used to perform long-term hindcasting of wind resources at a target site with only
short-term wind data. Various periods have been suggested for long-term data, such as three years [30],
10 years [31], and longer [32]. The long-term data series must coincide in the time series with the
short-term data. Moreover, for such long-term data, the use of hourly data may be more suitable than
the use of 10-min average wind data [33].
In the MCP method, the wind speed relationship between the target data and reference data
would be reliable in the presence of a strong wind direction relationship between the target data and
reference data. Correlation coefficient (R2 ) values in the ranges of 0.5–0.6, 0.6–0.7, 0.7–0.8, 0.8–0.9,
and 0.9–1.0 are considered very poor, poor, moderate, good, and very good [34]. To express the
characteristics of wind resources at the target site, data of at least a year should be used [35,36]. By
using the relationship of coincident time period between the target data and reference data, unavailable
target data can be synthesized from the reference data.

2.4. AEP
AEP is usually calculated as follows:

AEP = Nh ∑ F (v) × P(v), (1)

where Nh is the number of hours in a year (=8760), and F (v) and P(v) are the Weibull distribution and
the power output, respectively. The wake effect and the number of turbines must be considered when
assessing the energy produced by a wind farm.

2.5. WindSim Model

WindSim is a wind farm design tool that can be used to build a numerical model of terrain by
using elevation and roughness data. The code is based on the numerical core PHOENICS, which
solves the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equation [37]. The equation can be used with
Energies 2019, 12, 700 7 of 24

approximations based on knowledge of the properties of flow turbulence to obtain approximate

time-averaged
Energies solutions of the Navier–Stokes equation. The equation can be written as follows: 7
" ! #
𝜕𝑢
∂u j
fi̅+
∂𝜕
− pδ 𝜕𝑢 +
∂u i 𝜕𝑢
∂u j
− ρu0 u0 j
𝜌𝑢j ∂x j ==ρ𝜌𝑓
ρu + ∂x j −𝑝̅ 𝛿 ij +
+ 𝜇µ ∂x j + 𝜕𝑥
∂xi − 𝜌𝑢′i 𝑢′
(2)
(2)
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥

where 𝜌𝑢∂u j represents

where ρu representsthethe change
change in the
in the mean
mean momentum
momentum of fluid
of the the fluid element,
element, 𝜌𝑓 ̅ represents
ρ f i represents mean
j ∂x j
 
𝑝̅ 𝛿 represents + ∂x 𝜇 represents
+
∂u ∂u j
mean force,
body body pδ force,
ij represents isotropic isotropic
stress duestress
to thedue to pressure
mean the meanfield,pressure
µ ∂x i field,
j i
viscous stresses,
represents viscousand ρu0 i u0 j and
stresses, 𝜌𝑢′ 𝑢the
represents ′ Reynolds
represents stress.
the Reynolds stress.
This equation is solved using computational fluid
equation is solved using computational fluid dynamics dynamics (CFD). (CFD).
Convergence of this equation
Convergence of this
with the Reynolds
equation stress term
with the Reynolds is difficult,
stress term is so a turbulence
difficult, model is usually
so a turbulence model isadded.
usuallyBefore
added. theBefore
CFD
calculations, the domain
the CFD calculations, theisdomain
built based on based
is built the elevation and roughness
on the elevation of the target
and roughness site.target site.
of the
In offshore
offshoreareas, farm
areas, farmdynamics
dynamics are mainly drivendriven
are mainly by wakes.
by WindSim is suitableis
wakes. WindSim forsuitable
application
for
to offshore test
application cases [38].
to offshore testCompared
cases [38]. to other software
Compared packages,
to other softwareWindSim
packages, has high consistency
WindSim has high
in terms of in
consistency the topographic
terms effect, and
of the topographic assessment
effect, results obtained
and assessment using WindSim
results obtained using WindSimhave been
have
found to differ
been found by 1%
to differ byfrom
1% from realreal
production
production data [39].
data The
[39]. rotor
The rotorofofa awind
windturbine
turbineisis modeled
modeled as
an actuator
actuatordisc
disc[40],
[40],which
which is is
applied
appliedto model
to model the wakes of wind
the wakes turbines
of wind in combination
turbines with RANS
in combination with
simulations [41].
RANS simulations [41].
In the simulation
simulation process of of WindSim,
WindSim, terrain
terrain and
and wind
wind data
data are
are imported.
imported. Thereafter, the
boundary conditions and parameters of the the turbine
turbine are
are set
set up.
up.

2.5.1. Terrain Setup

2.5.1. Terrain setup
In
In the
thepresent
presentstudy, we we
study, employed
employedASTER GDEM
ASTER v2 Worldwide
GDEM ElevationElevation
v2 Worldwide Data withData
a resolution
with a
of 1 arc-second (approximately 30 m) to establish elevation data for the Changhua
resolution of 1 arc-second (approximately 30 m) to establish elevation data for the Changhua nearshore area.
The roughness data were obtained from GlobeLand30 with a resolution of 30 m. The
nearshore area. The roughness data were obtained from GlobeLand30 with a resolution of 30 m. Thedata contained
in ASTER
data GDEM
contained in v2 Worldwide
ASTER GDEMElevation Data and
v2 Worldwide GlobeLand30
Elevation were
Data and recorded using
GlobeLand30 weretherecorded
WGS84
coordinate system. These two data sources were imported into the Global Mapper
using the WGS84 coordinate system. These two data sources were imported into the Global Mapper used to convert
WGS84 into the WGS84
used to convert UTM 51N intocoordinate
the UTM 51Nsystem and combine
coordinate systemthe two
and data sources
combine into
the two dataa GWS fileinto
sources for
import into WindSim. The elevation and roughness of terrain of the Changhua
a GWS file for import into WindSim. The elevation and roughness of terrain of the Changhua nearshore area are
illustrated
nearshore areain Figure 4.
are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Elevation (left) and roughness (right) of terrain of Changhua nearshore area.

To ensure that the AEP calculation converged, the mesh of the terrain was calculated from
184,960 to 961,000 cells (Table 1), with the height layers set at 40 cells.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 8 of 24

To ensure that the AEP calculation converged, the mesh of the terrain was calculated from 184,960
to 961,000 cells (Table 1), with the height layers set at 40 cells.

Table 1. Mesh of terrain calculated in this study.

N Nx Ny Nz
184,960 68 68 40
361,000 95 95 40
519,840 114 114 40
686,440 131 131 40
961,000 155 155 40

2.5.2. Boundary Conditions

The parameters for boundary condition adopted in this study are listed in Table 2. The general
collocated velocity (GCV) method was used as the solver. With GCV, solutions converge even for
uneven grid architectures and steep terrain. For complex terrain, a fixed pressure is used as the top
boundary. Because the region considered in this study is near the shore (flat terrain), a no-friction wall
was used as the top boundary. The standard k-ε turbulence model contains two equations.
For turbulent kinetic energy k:
" #
∂(ρk ) ∂(ρkui ) ∂ µt ∂k
+ = + 2µt Eij Eij − ρe (3)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j σk ∂x j

For dissipation e:
" #
∂(ρe) ∂(ρeui ) ∂ µt ∂e e e2
+ = + C1e 2µt Eij Eij − C2e ρ (4)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j σe ∂x j k k

where ui represents the velocity component in the corresponding direction, Eij represents the
component of rate of deformation, and µt represents eddy viscosity.

Table 2. Parameters of boundary condition adopted in present study.

Parameters Value
Solvers General Collocated Velocity (GCV) method
Boundary layer height 1000 m
Velocity above boundary layer 15 m/s
Top boundary No-friction wall
Turbulence model Standard k-ε

Lu et al. [42] reported heights of the mixed layer for various geomorphic features in Taiwan; the
heights of the mixed layer ranged from 800 to 1100 m, except in mountain areas. In the present study,
1000 m was selected as the boundary layer height. The velocity of air above the boundary layer was
calculated using the power law and log law. The limits for the power law and log law are generally
under ABL (i.e., below 2000 m). In the altitude range of 30 < z < 300 m, the best fit is obtained using the
power law [43]. At altitudes lower than 200 m, the best fit is obtained using the log law. Drew et al. [44]
indicated that the profile calculated using the power law shows better fit at altitudes of 500–1000 m.
The altitudes considered for calculating the parameters of the log law and the power law were 50 and
95 m, respectively.
Wind data of a full year at mast heights of 50 and 95 m were used in the energy generation
calculation. Wind rose illustrated that the strong wind mainly originated from north-northeast
(Figure 5), which is in accordance with the dominant northeast monsoon in winter. The values of the
 Energies 2019, 12, 700 9 of 24

shape parameter (k) of the Weibull distributions for 50 m and 95 m were 1.5911 and 1.6169, respectively
(Figure 6), which means the distribution at 95 m was closer to that of a higher wind speed than that at
50Energies
Energies
m. 99

Figure5.5.Wind
Figure Windrose
rosefrom
from1 April
April 12016
2016toto1 April
April 12017
2017atatmast
mastheights
heightsofof
5050
mm and
and 9595
m.m.
Figure 5. Wind rose from April 1 2016 to April 1 2017 at mast heights of 50 m and 95 m.

Figure 6. Weibull distribution from 1 April 2016 to 1 April 2017 at mast heights of 50 m and 95 m.
Figure 6. Weibull distribution from April 1 2016 to April 1 2017 at mast heights of 50 m and 95 m.
2.5.3. Wind Turbine
2.5.3.
A Wind
SiemensTurbine
SWT-4.0-120 turbine, which conforms to1IEC
Figure 6. Weibull distribution from April 1 2016 to April 2017Class
at mastIA,heights
was used
of 50 in this 95
m and study
m. to
evaluate the potential
A Siemens of wind turbine,
SWT-4.0-120 power generation because
which conforms to two turbines
IEC Class IA, of
wasthis type
used inwere erected
this study to in 2016
evaluate
as demonstration
2.5.3.
theWind Turbine
potential offshore wind turbines in Taiwan. The rated power output of one
of wind power generation because two turbines of this type were erected in 2016 such turbine is 4as
MW at a rated wind
demonstration speed
offshore windof 16 m/s. The
turbines rotor diameter
in Taiwan. The ratedispower
120 m,output
and theof swept
one sucharea is 11,300
turbine m2 . at
is 4 MW
A Siemens SWT-4.0-120 turbine, which conforms to IEC Class IA, was used in this study to evaluate
a rated wind speed of 16 m/s. The rotor diameter is 120 m, and the swept area is 11,300 m2.
the potential of wind power generation because two turbines of this type were erected in 2016 as
demonstration offshore wind turbines in Taiwan. The rated power output of one such turbine is 4 MW at
2.5.4. Park Optimization
a rated wind speed of 16 m/s. The rotor diameter is 120 m, and the swept area is 11,300 m2.
WindSim optimizes park layouts by identifying turbine locations with the highest wind speeds
but low turbulence to maximize energy production while minimizing turbine load problems. The
2.5.4. Park Optimization
Energies 2019, 12, 700 10 of 24

2.5.4. Park Optimization

WindSim optimizes park layouts by identifying turbine locations with the highest wind speeds
but low turbulence to maximize energy production while minimizing turbine load problems. The wake
effect is the main parameter in park optimization. The Jenson model was used as wake model used in
this study. The decay coefficient, k d , was set to 0.05 for the offshore condition [45]. With the input of
velocity scalar XY, velocity scalar Z, and inflow angle and turbulence intensity at hub height and blade
tip height, the Park Optimizer module was used to optimize the wind farm. The limitation of the IEC
standard is summarized in Table 3. The Park Optimizer considered the terrain condition, inflow angle,
turbulence intensity, and velocity for setting the limitation for turbines. The Park Optimizer calculates
the best locations for different numbers of turbines by determining the inter-turbine distance required
to avoid the wake effect. For determining turbine locations, inter-turbine distance is calculated with
the limitation and the wind resource map, which the files export after performing the CFD calculation
and importing terrain data and wind data. The results of the Park Optimizer are the energy production
affected by wake effects and turbine coordinates.

Table 3. Main IEC checks for site conditions and limits.

IEC Main Check IEC Limits

Terrain complexity Ic = 0
Extreme wind V50y < Vref
Effective turbulence σEff(Vhub ) < σ1(Vhub , Iref)
Velocity distribution f(Vhub ) < Weibull (k = 2, Vmean)
Wind Shear 0 < αMean < 0.2
Inflow angle −8◦ < ϕMax < +8◦
Air density ρMean < 1.225 kg/m3

2.6. Uncertainty in Wind Resource Assessment

Numerous factors influence the forecasting results, such as performance of numerical weather
prediction, power curves, and measurements. Wind resources can be classified as historical and future
resources. Historical wind resources usually present an uncertainty of 3% to 6%. Without a reference
data source or in the absence of thorough data analysis, the uncertainty for one year of measurement is
assumed to be 4% [3]. For future wind resources, uncertainty is calculated as follows:
q
σ f uture = σnormal 2 + σclimate 2 (5)

σ
σnormal ∼
= p (6)
Np
where Np is the number of the years used for estimating uncertainty in the future, and σ is the
uncertainty for a year. The uncertainty due to climate change ranges from 0.5% to 2%. Brower et al.
indicated that the uncertainty is 0.5% when Np equals 10 years and 2% when Np equals 25 years [3].
For long-term wind prediction, uncertainty is based on the correlation coefficient of the wind
speed between the target site and the reference site. Correlation coefficients greater than 0.9, between
0.9 and 0.8, and between 0.7 and 0.6 indicate wind speed correlation uncertainties of less than 1%,
between 1% and 2%, and between 3% and 5%, respectively [46].
The power curve is one of main sources of uncertainty. The power output is given for steady
wind conditions, while power cannot be generated as ideally as shown by the curve. The main causes
of uncertainty are turbulence, air density, and the shear characteristics of the site. The uncertainty of a
power curve is usually 6% [47].
Energies 2019, 12, 700 11 of 24

Various parameters pertaining to uncertainty have been used to forecast the probability of energy
production. P50 represents a 50% probability that a given amount of energy will be generated [48].
The probability of energy production for probability x, Px , is as follows:

Px = P50 × (1 − z × Uncertainty Total ) (7)

where z is the value of normal distribution for a specific probability.

2.7. Economic Evaluation

The number of turbines and their coordinates were obtained using the Park Optimizer. An
economic evaluation was conducted to determine the value of the wind farm. The costs of a wind farm
include capital and operational expenditures (Table 4). Because Taiwan currently has no commercially
operating offshore wind farms, expenditures of offshore wind farms in the United States [49] and
Europe [50] were used to conduct economic evaluation of offshore wind farms in the present study.

Table 4. Expenditures of offshore wind farms in the United States and Europe.

Items United States Europe

$k/MW NTDk/MW €k/MW NTDk/MW
Development 139 4071 103 3716
Turbine 1466 42,939 1240 44739
CapEx
Support structure 679 19,888 670 24,174
Array electrical 396 11,599 100 3608
Construction 1325 38,809 554 19,988
$k/MW/yr NTDk/MW/yr €k/MW/yr NTDk/MW/yr
OpEx Operating and Maintenance 179 5243 44 1588
Unplanned service and other OpEx - - 54 1948

The offshore wind power purchase price in Taiwan decreased slightly from 2017 to 2018 owing to
a decrease in costs (Table 5). Calculation results obtained based on this price can be used to estimate
whether the development of a wind farm is worthwhile in terms of the values of net present value
(NPV) and energy cost.

Table 5. Wind power purchase price in Taiwan [51,52].

Variation
Renewable Capacity Purchase Price (NTD/kWh)
Type (%)
Energy (kW)
2017 2018
≥1~<30 8.9716 8.6685 −3.38
Onshore With LVRT * 2.8776 2.7669 −3.85
Wind ≥30
Without LVRT 2.8395 2.7315 −3.80
Power
Sustained 20 years purchase 6.0437 5.8141 −3.80
Offshore ≥1 Stepped First 10 years 7.4034 7.0622 −4.61
purchase Last 10 years 3.5948 3.5685 −0.73
* LVRT: Abbreviation of low voltage ride through. It is the capability of wind turbines to stay connected in short
periods of lower electric network voltage.

2.7.1. Net Present Value

The NPV represents the difference between the present value of cash inflows and cash outflows
over a period of time for an investment. The general formula for calculating NPV is as follows:

T
Ct
NPV = ∑ (1 + r)t − CTotal (8)
t =1
Energies 2019, 12, 700 12 of 24

where Ct is the net cash inflow during the period t, CTotal is the total initial investment, and r is the
discount rate.
The formula used in this study is as follows:

T
NPV (n) = −C0 − C1 n − C2 n + ∑ (1 + r)−t E(n)(( Pt ) − OCt (n)) (9)
t =1

where C0 is the fixed cost, C1 is turbine costs, C2 represents variable costs such as cabling and
foundation costs, n is number of turbines, E(n) is power generation, Pt is price of power sales,
and OCt (n) is operational cost. The values of Pt and OCt (n) vary with time. The values of sales or cost
for the first year are considerably greater than the corresponding values for the last year.
12 AnEnergies
investment with a positive NPV is generally regarded as profitable. Based on 4C Offshore
data, the target wind farm requires an investment of 4.700 billion US dollars (137.6 billion NTD).
fixed cost 𝐶 , which includes the costs of transformers, wharves, grid connections, and other costs
The fixed cost C0 , which was
not related to turbines,
includes the costs of transformers, wharves, grid connections, and other
estimated as the difference between the total investment and capital
costs not related to turbines, was estimated
expenditure; it was calculated to be 50 billion asNTD.
the difference between the total investment and capital
expenditure; it was calculated to be 50 billion NTD.
2.7.2. Cost of Energy
2.7.2. Cost of Energy
The cost of energy is the price of generating energy. The formula used to determine it in this
Theiscost
study of energy is the price of generating energy. The formula used to determine it in this study
as follows:
is as follows:
T
C𝐶0 +
+C𝐶1 𝑛
n++ 𝐶C2𝑛n
++ ∑(1(1++𝑟)r ) (𝑂𝐶
−t
K (𝐾(𝑛)
n) == (𝑛))
(OCt ( n )) (10) (10)
𝐸(𝑛)
E (n) t =1

where
wherethe
theparameters
parametersare
arethe
thesame
same as
as those
those for NPV.

3. 3.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussion
Discussion

3.1.
3.1.Potential
Potentialfor
forPower
PowerGeneration
Generation
The
Thepower
powergeneration
generationand
andcapacity
capacityfactor
factorofofaa4-MW
4-MWSiemens
SiemensSWT-4.0-120
SWT-4.0-120turbine
turbineatatthe
themast
mastsite
were
site estimated usingusing
were estimated WindSim with with
WindSim the data
the measured at theatmast.
data measured The energy
the mast. produced
The energy produced in winter
in
was almost
winter wasfour-fold higher than
almost four-fold thatthan
higher produced in summer
that produced (Figure 7).
in summer The average
(Figure capacitycapacity
7). The average factor of a
single
factorturbine wasturbine
of a single aroundwas
41%.
around 41%.

2500 70

60
2000
Power generation (MWh)

Capacity factor (%)

50

1500
40

30
1000
Power gen. 95m_1
Power gen. 95m_2 20
CF 95m_1
500 CF 95m_2
Ave. CF 95m_1 10
Ave. CF 95m_2
0 0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Figure7.7.Power
Figure Powergeneration
generation and
and capacity
capacity factor
factorof
ofaa4-MW
4-MWSiemens
SiemensSWT-4.0-120
SWT-4.0-120 turbine from
turbine April
from April
2016totoApril
2016 April2017
2017atatmast
mastsite
site estimated
estimated using
using two
twosets
setsofofmeasured
measureddata
dataatat
mast height
mast of of
height 95 95
m.m.

TheAEP
The AEP andand capacity
capacity factor
factor with
with different
different numbers
numbers of turbines
of turbines in theinZoPthe26
ZoPwind26 farm
windindicated
farm
indicated
that the AEPthat the AEPas
increased increased as the
the number ofnumber
turbinesofincreased
turbines increased
(Figure 8).(Figure
For an8). For an inter-turbine
inter-turbine distance of
distance
12D of 12D (D
(D = turbine = turbinethe
diameter), diameter),
capacitythe capacity
factor was factor
higherwas
thanhigher
48.6%.than 48.6%.
If the If the were
distance distance were
to decrease
to decrease to 6D, the number of turbines would increase to 132 accordingly, while the capacity factor
would decrease to 47.6%.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 13 of 24

toEnergies 13
6D, the number of turbines would increase to 132 accordingly, while the capacity factor would
decrease
Energies to 47.6%. 13

Figure8.8.8.AEP
Figure
Figure AEPand
AEP andcapacity
and capacityfactor
capacity factor
factor with
with
with different
different
different numbers
numbers
numbersofofofturbines
turbines
turbines inZoP
in in
ZoP ZoP2626wind
26 wind wind
farmfarm estimated
estimated
farm estimated
using mast
usingmast
using mastdata.data.
data.

TheAEP
The
The AEPunder
AEP under
under the
the
the gross
gross
gross and
and
and wake
wake
wake conditions
conditions
conditions is illustrated
is illustrated
is illustrated in Figure
in Figure 8. Wake
8. Wake loss loss increases
increases as theas
the number
number
number of turbines
of
of turbinesturbines increases
increases
increases (Figure (Figure
(Figure 9).
9). The9).curve
TheThe
of curve
curve
wake of wake
of loss
wake loss
was loss
notwas was
not not
smooth smoothsmooth
because the because
because the the
simulation
simulation
simulation was
was conducted
conducted independently
independently for different
for different numbers
numbers of turbines.
of The
turbines.
was conducted independently for different numbers of turbines. The slope of wake loss increased with slope
The of
slopewake
of loss
wake loss
increased
increased
the with
numberwith the number
the number
of wind of wind turbines
turbinesofinstalled.
wind turbines installed.
The wake installed. The
loss was wake
The3.5% loss
wake was
forloss 3.5%
thewas for the inter-turbine
3.5% for the
inter-turbine inter-turbine
distance of 6D
distance of
distance
compared of 6D
6Dcompared
with compared
the with
wake losswith the
thewake
values wake loss
loss
obtained values
byvaluesobtained
onshore obtained by by
onshore
simulation [53]simulation
onshore from[53]
simulation
and and from
[53]
offshore and from
floating
offshore floating
offshore floating turbines
turbines[54]
[54]for
forvarious
various inter-turbine
inter-turbine distances.
distances.
turbines [54] for various inter-turbine distances.

Figure 9. Wake loss for different numbers of turbines in wind farm and for various inter-turbine
Figure9.9.Wake
Figure
distances Wakelosstofor
loss
compared thedifferent
for differentnumbersin of
numbers
values obtained ofturbines
andin
turbines
onshore inwind farm
farmand
andfor
windsimulations.
offshore forvarious
variousinter-turbine
inter-turbine
distances compared to the values obtained in onshore and offshore simulations.
distances compared to the values obtained in onshore and offshore simulations.
3.2. Wind Farm Optimization
3.2. Wind Farm Optimization
3.2. Wind Farmanalysis
The NPV Optimization
of indicated that the purchase price obtained using the stepped purchase price
The higher
yielded NPV analysis of indicated that using
the purchase price obtained using
the the stepped
powerpurchase price
The NPV analysis of that
profit than obtained
indicated the continuous
that the purchase value, and
price obtained using cost
the of
stepped in Europe
purchase price
yielded
was lowerhigher profit
thanprofit than
that in that
the that obtained
United using
States using the
(Figure continuous value, and the cost of power in Europe
yielded higher than obtained the10). When using
continuous continuous
value, purchase
and the cost priceinand
of power Europe
was lowerexpenditures,
Europe’s than that in the turbines
United States (Figure 10). When using continuous purchase price
theand
was lower than that in131 the Unitedwould Statesbe(Figure
needed to generate
10). sufficient
When using power to
continuous ensure that
purchase price and
Europe’s expenditures,
NPV is positive. When 131
usingturbines would
the stepped be needed
purchase to generate
price, sufficientwould
powerbetoneeded
ensureforthat
a the
Europe’s expenditures, 131 turbines would be needed toonly 118 turbines
generate sufficient power to ensure that the
NPV is positive.
profitable project.When usingcannot
The NPV the stepped
be made purchase
positive price,
by usingonly 118 turbines
United would be needed
States’ expenditures, even iffor a
NPV is positive. When using the stepped purchase price, only 118 turbines would be needed for a
the revenue
profitable from power
project. The NPVsalescannot
were calculated
be made using the by
positive stepped
usingpurchase price. This
United States’ means that even
expenditures, the if
profitable project. The NPV cannot be made positive by using United States’ expenditures, even if
expenditures
the revenue from of anpower
offshore wind
sales werefarm would need
calculated usingto the
be as low aspurchase
stepped those in Europe to make
price. This meansthisthat
the revenue from power sales were calculated using the stepped purchase price. This means that the
investment lucrative.
expenditures of an offshore wind farm would need to be as low as those in Europe to make this
investment lucrative.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 14 of 24

14 Energies
the expenditures of an offshore wind farm would need to be as low as those in Europe to make this
investment lucrative.
14 Energies

Figure 10. Net present value for different numbers of turbines considering the purchase price of wind
Figure
energy10.
Figure Net
in10. present
Net value
present
Taiwan. for
value fordifferent
differentnumbers
numbersof
ofturbines
turbines considering thepurchase
considering the purchaseprice
priceofofwind
wind
energy
energy in Taiwan.
in Taiwan.
The analysis of energy cost indicated that the cost is less than 0.1 million NTD/MWh considering
TheThe
analysis of of
analysis energy
energycost indicated
cost indicatedthat
thatthe
thecost
costisisless
less than
than 0.1 million
million NTD/MWh
NTD/MWhconsidering
considering
Europe’s expenditures and more than 40 turbines (Figure 11). Similar results were obtained
Europe’s expenditures
Europe’s expendituresand more than 40
and more turbines
than (Figure (Figure
40 turbines 11). Similar
11). results
Similarwere obtained
results wereconsidering
obtained
considering the United States’ expenditures. In terms of the cost of including additional turbines, the
the considering
United States’
theexpenditures.
United States’ In terms of theIn
expenditures. cost of including
terms of the costadditional
of includingturbines, the value
additional wasthe
turbines, less
value was less than −0.001 for more than 53 turbines, which means that the cost of including an
than −0.001
value wasfor
less thanthan
more −0.001 for more which
53 turbines, than 53meansturbines,
thatwhich
the costmeans that the cost
of including of including
an additional an
turbine
additional turbine
turbinewas
wasalmost
almostconstant.
wasadditional
almost constant. constant.

Figure 11. Cost of energy with different numbers of turbines and the cost of including an additional
Figure11.
Figure 11.Cost
Costofofenergy
energywith
withdifferent
differentnumbers
numbersofofturbines
turbinesand
andthe
thecost
costofofincluding
includingananadditional
additional
turbine. The lines of Europe and United States overlap, indicating that the energy cost and the cost of
turbine.
turbine. The lines
The anlines of Europe and United States
of Europeturbine are similar overlap,
States when
overlap, indicating
indicating that the energy
thatEurope’s
the energy cost
cost and thecost
and the costof
including additional calculated using and United States’
ofincluding
including ananadditional
expenditures. additional turbine
turbine
(dcost: additional aredn:
are
cost, similar
similar whenturbine).
when
additional calculated using
calculated using Europe’s and United
United States’
States’
expenditures.
expenditures.(dcost:
(dcost:additional
additionalcost,
cost,dn:
dn:additional
additionalturbine).
turbine).
Considering that a profitable project required at least 118 turbines, the following energy
Considering
Considering that
that aa profitable
profitable project required atat least 118 turbines, the following energy
production was calculated based on project
wind farm required
optimization least 118 turbines.
for 118 turbines,The
the following
wind energy
farm layouts
production
production was calculated
was calculated based
based on on wind
wind farmfarm optimization
optimization for 118 turbines. The wind farm
were optimized using WindSim to identify turbine locations for
with118
theturbines. The wind
highest wind farm
speeds butlayouts
low
layouts
were were
turbulence, optimized
optimized using
as well using
as WindSim WindSim
to maximize to
to energy
identifyidentify turbine
turbine locations
production locations with
with theturbine
and to minimize the
highest highest
wind
load wind speeds
speeds(Figure
problems but low
but low turbulence,
turbulence,
12). as well as
as well as to maximize
to maximize energy energy production
production and to minimize
and to minimize turbineturbine load problems
load problems (Figure
(Figure
12). 12).
Energies 2019, 12, 700 15 of 24

Energies 15

Energies 15

Figure 12. Turbine layout based on park

park optimization
optimization for
for 118
118 turbines.
turbines.

3.3.
3.3. Estimating
Estimating Long-Term
Long-Term Historical
Historical Power
Power Production
Production of
of Wind
WindFarm
FarmUsing
UsingMCP
MCP
Figure 12. Turbine layout based on park optimization for 118 turbines.
The
The power
power production
production of of ZoP
ZoP 2626 was assessed using
was assessed using measured
measured data
data and
and MCPMCP datadata for long-term
for long-term
3.3.
prediction. Estimating
The one-yearLong-Term
one-year data Historical
data measured
measured atPower Production
at the
the mast of
mast from Wind
from 2016 Farm Using MCP
prediction. The 2016 to
to 2017
2017 represents
represents the the target
target data
data ofof
wind resources.
The The
power long-term
production data
of ZoPcontained
26 was actual
assessed and
using synthesized
measured data data
and
wind resources. The long-term data contained actual and synthesized data for simulating historical MCPfor simulating
data for historical
long-term
wind
wind conditions.
prediction.Reference
conditions. The one-year
Reference data
data from
data
from MERRA
measured
MERRA and
at the
and CWB
mast
CWB from locations Lukang
2016 to 2017
locations and
and Shenggang
represents
Lukang the target data
Shenggang were
of used
were used
to wind resources. The long-term data contained actual and synthesized data for simulating historical
to conduct MCP. The one-year simulation used hourly wind speeds and wind directions obtained at
conduct MCP. The one-year simulation used hourly wind speeds and wind directions obtained at
wind conditions. Reference data from MERRA and CWB locations Lukang and Shenggang were used
the
the mast
masttoheights
heights of
of 10,
10, 30,
30, 50,
50, and
and 95
95 m.
m.
conduct MCP. The one-year simulation used hourly wind speeds and wind directions obtained at
The correlation
Thethe
correlation of
of wind
wind direction
direction between
between the
the two
two sources
sources must
must bebe adequately
adequately strong strong toto conduct
conduct
mast heights of 10, 30, 50, and 95 m.
MCP before
MCP before The the correlation
the correlation
correlation of
of of
windwind
wind speed
speed
direction between
between
between the two
thesources
the two sources
two sources can
must becan be checked.
be checked.
adequately The
strong toThe correlation
correlation
conduct
coefficients
MCP
coefficients of wind
ofbefore direction
windthe data
correlation
direction ofbetween
data wind thethe
speed
between mast
betweenand
mast the
andMERRA
twoMERRA 1–4can
sources were
1–4 0.782,
bewere
checked. 0.827, 0.799,0.799,
The0.827,
0.782, and 0.81,
correlation and
coefficients
respectively. of wind
The correlation direction data
coefficients between
betweenthe mast and
the mast MERRA 1–4 were 0.782, 0.827, 0.799, and
0.81, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the and
mastCWB Lukang
and CWB and Shenggang
Lukang and Shenggang were
very 0.81, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the mast and CWB Lukang and Shenggang
weregood at 0.909
very good and 0.898,
at 0.909 respectively
and 0.898, (Figure
respectively 13). The
(Figure 13).correlation coefficients
The correlation of wind
coefficients speedspeed
of wind data
were very good at 0.909 and 0.898, respectively (Figure 13). The correlation coefficients of wind speed
between the
data between mast and
the mast MERRA
and and 1–4
MERRA were 0.316,
1–41–4were0.652, 0.611 and 0.634, respectively. The correlation
data between the mast MERRA were0.316, 0.652, 0.611
0.316, 0.652, 0.611andand 0.634,
0.634, respectively.
respectively. The The
coefficients
correlation between
coefficients
correlation the mast
between
coefficients and CWB
the the
between mast Shenggang
and
mast andCWB and
CWBShenggang Lukang
Shenggang and were
andLukangmoderate
Lukang were were at 0.746
moderate
moderate andat 0.631,
at 0.746 0.746
respectively
and 0.631,and (Figure
respectively 13).(Figure
0.631, respectively 13). 13).
(Figure

Figure 13. Correlation coefficient of wind direction data between mast and CWB Lukang (left) and of
Figure 13. Correlation coefficient of wind direction data between mast and CWB Lukang (left) and of
wind speed data between mast and CWB Shenggang (right).
wind speed data between mast and CWB Shenggang (right).

Figure 13. Correlation coefficient of wind direction data between mast and CWB Lukang (left) and of
wind speed data between mast and CWB Shenggang (right).
Energies 2019, 12, 700 16 of 24

The aforementioned correlations of wind speeds are overall correlations. MCP for wind speed
employs the relationship between two data individually in 12 sectors of wind direction. The correlation
coefficient of wind speed between the mast and MERRA and the mast and CWB stations for each
sector are listed in Table 6, while the correlation formulas of wind speed for 12 sectors are listed in
Table 7. The relationship between the target data and reference data is significant for conducting MCP.
The linear least-squares method, a common method for finding the relationship between two data sets,
was used in this study to discover the linear equation and coefficients for MCP. The data unavailable
at the target site were synthesized using the correlation formula of each sector.

Table 6. Correlation coefficient of wind speed between mast (95 m) and MERRA 1–4 and CWB Lukang
and Shenggang for 12 sectors.

MERRA (50 m)
Mast (95 m) Lukang (17 m) Shenggang (24 m)
Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4
345◦ –15◦ 0.346 0.750 0.648 0.737 0.668 0.708
15◦ –45◦ 0.342 0.779 0.732 0.704 0.644 0.818
45◦ –75◦ 0.240 0.090 0.684 0.47 0.096 0.157
75◦ –105◦ 0.048 0.738 0.541 0.751 0.044 0.025
105◦ –135◦ 0.130 0.738 0.407 0.751 0.169 0.068
135◦ –165◦ 0.394 0.431 0.361 0.740 0.406 0.434
165◦ –195◦ 0.452 0.553 0.566 0.643 0.619 0.601
195◦ –225◦ 0.483 0.506 0.555 0.445 0.646 0.597
225◦ –255◦ 0.292 0.299 0.307 0.386 0.547 0.581
255◦ –285◦ 0.037 0.003 0.205 0.094 0.397 0.286
285◦ –315◦ 0.010 0.007 0.021 0.041 0.172 0.120
315◦ –345◦ 0.321 0.700 0.024 0.345 0.297 0.189
Total 0.316 0.652 0.611 0.634 0.631 0.746
18 Energies
The time
The time series
series of
of wind
wind speed
speed at
at the
the mast
mast (95(95 m
m height)
height) (obtained
(obtained with
with MCP
MCP byby using
using the
the data
data
measuredatatthe
measured themast
mastand andMERRA
MERRA location
location 2 as2 reference
as reference data)
data) indicated
indicated repeated
repeated occurrences
occurrences of
of high
high wind speeds in winter and of low wind speed in summer
wind speeds in winter and of low wind speed in summer (Figure 14). (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Time series of wind speed at mast (95 m height) with MCP by using data measured at mast
Figure 14. Time series of wind speed at mast (95 m height) with MCP by using data measured at mast
and MERRA location 2.
and MERRA location 2.

The Weibull distributions of MCP data obtained from CWB Lukang and the measured mast data
are very close (Figure 15), and the distributions of the data recorded at MERRA locations 2, 3, and 4
were similar with the highest probability at the wind speed of 7 m/s.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 17 of 24

Table 7. Correlation formulas of wind speed between mast (95 m) and MERRA 1–4 and CWB Lukang and Shenggang for 12 sectors.

MERRA (50 m)
Mast (95 m) Lukang (17 m) Shenggang (24 m)
Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4
345◦ –15◦ y = 1.324x + 7.689 y = 1.222x + 1.016 y = 1.252x + 2.206 y = 1.072x + 0.439 y = 2.292x + 5.505 y = 2.044x + 3.468
15◦ –45◦ y = 1.548x + 7.819 y = 1.217x + 2.090 y = 1.308x + 2.358 y = 1.165x − 0.446 y = 2.372x + 5.832 y = 1.967x + 3.858
45◦ –75◦ y = 1.678x + 7.488 y = 0.351x + 7.009 y = 1.471x + 1.140 y = 0.685x + 2.187 y = 3.015x + 1.782 y = 2.195x + 2.188
75◦ –105◦ y = 0.663x + 9.580 y = 1.266x + 0.116 y = 0.932x + 1.904 y = 1.127x − 0.314 y = 2.519x + 0.826 y = 2.272x + 0.974
105◦ –135◦ y = 1.005x + 4.532 y = 1.266x + 0.116 y = 1.641x − 1.024 y = 1.127x − 0.314 y = 2.205x + 1.626 y = 2.184x + 1.221
135◦ –165◦ y = 0.953x + 1.687 y = 0.431x + 4.097 y = 0.453x + 4.429 y = 0.633x + 3.877 y = 2.085x + 1.533 y = 2.246x + 0.971
165◦ –195◦ y = 1.040x + 1.822 y = 0.848x + 1.090 y = 1.183x − 0.408 y = 0.923x + 0.252 y = 2.249x + 1.203 y = 2.081x + 1.221
195◦ –225◦ y = 1.037x + 2.238 y = 1.055x + 0.108 y = 0.977x + 1.373 y = 0.913x + 0.593 y = 2.000x + 0.896 y = 1.634x + 1.108
225◦ –255◦ y = 0.991x + 1.948 y = 0.622x + 2.352 y = 0.903x + 1.894 y = 0.909x + 1.013 y = 2.246x + 2.694 y = 1.840x + 3.125
255◦ –285◦ y = 0.401x + 3.983 y = 0.103x + 4.972 y = 0.803x + 1.953 y = 0.452x + 3.234 y = 2.985x + 0.240 y = 2.619x + 0.161
285◦ –315◦ y = 0.395x + 5.613 y = 0.172x + 4.687 y = 0.301x + 4.675 y = −0.260x + 6.395 y = 3.210x + 1.068 y = 2.569x + 0.861
315◦ –345◦ y = 1.695x + 2.780 y = 1.387x − 0.034 y = 0.296x + 5.340 y = 0.700x + 2.849 y = 2.466x + 4.356 y = 2.226x + 2.772
Energies 2019, 12, 14.
Figure 700Time series of wind speed at mast (95 m height) with MCP by using data measured at mast 18 of 24
and MERRA location 2.

TheThe
Weibull distributions
Weibull ofofMCP
distributions MCPdata
dataobtained
obtainedfrom
from CWB Lukang and
CWB Lukang andthe
themeasured
measuredmast
mast data
data
areare
very
very close (Figure 15), and the distributions of the data recorded at MERRA locations 2, 3, and 4 4
close (Figure 15), and the distributions of the data recorded at MERRA locations 2, 3, and
were similar
were with
similar thethe
with highest probability
highest probabilityatatthe
thewind
windspeed
speedofof 77 m/s.
m/s.

Figure Weibull
15. 15.
Figure Weibulldistribution
distributionatatmast
mast(95
(95mmheight)
height) describes the probability
describes the probabilitydensity
densityofofdifferent
different
wind speeds
wind speedswith measured
with measured mast
mastdata
dataand
andMCP
MCPdata
data obtained using MERRA
obtained using MERRAdata dataofoflocations
locations1–4
1–4
andand
CWBCWBdata of of
data Lukang
Lukang and Shenggang.
and Shenggang.

TheThe
AEP of of
AEP thethe
wind
wind farm
farmwas
wascalculated
calculatedusing
using Equation (1) from
Equation (1) fromSection
Section2.4
2.4with
withconsideration
consideration
of wake loss.
of wake The
loss. TheAEPAEP values
valuesobtained
obtainedusing
usingdifferent
different numbers
numbers ofof cells
cellsdid
didnot
notchange
changesignificantly
significantly
when
when thethe number
number of of cells
cells waswasincreased
increasedfrom
from184,960
184,960 to
to 961,000
961,000 (Table
(Table 8).
8). Higher
Higherlevels
levelsofofenergy
energy
production
production were
were simulated
simulated using
using MCPdata
MCP dataderived
derivedfrom
fromMERRA
MERRA locations
locations 22 and
and4.4.

3.4. Prediction of Wind Power Generation and Probability

The probability of AEP is based on uncertainties. Uncertainties of parameters are summarized in
Table 9. The constant values are discussed in Section 2.5, and the non-constant values change with
various conditions. The uncertainty of long-term correlation was estimated using the interpolation
method [46], and the results are summarized in Table 10. The wake effect was calculated
using WindSim.
As described in Section 2.5.1, the mesh of the terrain was calculated from 184,960 to 961,000 cells
to ensure that AEP calculations converged. The number of meshes was used to consider whether the
value converged for CFD calculation. The convergence of AEP may confirm that the CFD calculation
results are correct. The AEP results converged after the number of meshes was more than 519,840
cells. The AEP of P50 was thus based on the AEP estimated with 519,840 cells. P50 represented
the assessment of power production without considering uncertainties, while uncertainties affected
the result of energy production at P75 and P90. The predictions of energy production became more
conservative with increasing probability value (Figure 16). The AEP predicted for 10 years was slightly
higher than that for 25 years (Table 11). The MCP data derived from the outermost offshore MERRA
location 4 yielded the highest prediction of energy production for the wind farm in ZoP 26, followed by
the more nearshore MERRA location 2. The MCP data from the most inland CWB station of Shenggang
yielded the lowest prediction of energy production. The AEP of P90 predicted using the MCP data
derived from the CWB data of Lukang at 1732 GWh/y was considerably close to the 1735 GWh/y
value predicted using measured mast data.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 19 of 24

Table 8. AEP values obtained for different numbers of meshes and data sources by using data measured at mast, MCP data from MERRA data of locations 2 and 4,
and CWB data of Lukang and Shenggeng.

Cells 184,960 361,000 519,840 686,440 961,000

AEP Wake Loss AEP Wake Loss AEP Wake Loss AEP Wake Loss AEP Wake Loss Error (%)
118 Turbines
(MWh/y) (%) (MWh/y) (%) (MWh/y) (%) (MWh/y) (%) (MWh/y) (%)
Mast 1,972,872 3.18 1,973,030 3.18 1,973,249 3.16 1,973,570 3.17 1,973,744 3.13 0.04%
MERRA 2 2,162,625 3.65 2,162,000 3.67 2,162,471 3.64 2,162,864 3.64 2,163,223 3.61 0.06%
MERRA 4 2,205,681 3.44 2,204,560 3.49 2,204,617 3.48 2,205,072 3.48 2,204,887 3.47 0.05%
Lukang 1,984,686 3.20 1,984,421 3.20 1,985,521 3.13 1,985,812 3.14 1,986,699 3.09 0.11%
Shenggang 1,903,427 3.88 1,902,261 3.93 1,902,429 3.90 1,902,727 3.90 1,902,831 3.88 0.06%
Energies 2019, 12, 700 20 of 24

Table 9. Uncertainties of parameters used in this study.

Parameter Uncertainty (%)

Measurement 2.04
Tower effect 0.5
Wind resource Historical wind resource 4
Future wind resource (10 yrs, 25 yrs) (1.4, 2.15)
Long-term correlation Inconstant
Wind flow model 6
Energy level Power curve 6
Energy losses (wake effect) Inconstant

Table 10. Uncertainties in long-term correlations of different data sources as determined using MCP
data from MERRA data of locations 2 and 4, and CWB data of Lukang and Shenggeng.

MERRA 2 MERRA 4 CWB Lukang CWB Shenggang

R2 0.652 0.634 0.631 0.746
Uncertainty (%) 3.96 4.32 4.38 2.54
20 Energies

Figure
Figure AEP
16.16. values
AEP of P50,
values P75,P75,
of P50, andand
P90 P90
predicted for 10for
predicted and
1025 years
and by using
25 years by measured mast data,
using measured mast
MCP data
data, MCP from MERRA
data data of locations
from MERRA 2 and 4,2and
data of locations andCWB
4, and data
CWB of Lukang and Shenggeng.
data of Lukang and Shenggeng.

Table 11. AEP of P50, P75, and P90 predicted for 10 and 25 years using measured mast data, MCP data
Table 11. AEP of P50, P75, and P90 predicted for 10 and 25 years using measured mast data, MCP
derived from MERRA data of locations 2 and 4, and CWB data of Lukang and Shenggeng.
data derived from MERRA data of locations 2 and 4, and CWB data of Lukang and Shenggeng.
AEPAEP
(GWh/y)
(GWh/y)
Prediction
Prediction Period
Period (years) (years) Measurement
Measurement MCP/
MCP/ MCP/ MCP/ MCP/CWB MCP/CWB
MCP/CWB Lukang MCP/CWB Shenggang
at Mast
at Mast MERRA
MERRA 2 2MERRA 4
MERRA 4 Lukang Shenggang
10 1973 2162 2205 1986 1902
P50 10 1973 2162 2205 1986 1902
P50 25 1973 2162 2205 1986 1902
25 1973 2162 2205 1986 1902
10 1849 2021 2055 1853 1776
P75 10 1849 2021 2055 1853 1776
P75 25 1848 2020 2053 1852 1774
25 1848 2020 2053 1852 1774
10 1737 1894 1919 1734 1661
P90 10 1737 1894 1919 1734 1661
P90 25 1735 1891 1917 1732 1659
25 1735 1891 1917 1732 1659
10 9.3 9.7 10.1 9.9 9.9
Uncertainty (%) 10 9.3 9.7 10.1 9.9 9.9
Uncertainty (%) 25 9.4 9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0
25 9.4 9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0

Table 12 compares the predicted efficiency of wind farm ZoP 26 for Taiwan, the Netherlands,
andTable 12 compares
the Republic the predicted
of Korea. efficiencyof
The development ofoffshore
wind farm ZoP
wind 26 forin
energy Taiwan,
Taiwanthe Netherlands,
remains and
in its infancy;
the Republic
domestic of Korea.
wind energyThe development
output achieved of offshore
only windin
1457 GWh energy
2016. in
TheTaiwan remains
10-year AEP ofinP90
its predicted
infancy;
using measured mast data at 1737 GWh/y has 119% share of the total domestic wind energy output
and 16% of the total domestic renewable energy output. The relatively high percentages indicate the
importance of wind farm ZoP 26 for Taiwan. The wind farm has a share of only 0.67% of domestic
electricity consumption; therefore, an enormous demand remains for Taiwan to develop offshore
wind energy in a transition toward a renewable energy system.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 21 of 24

domestic wind energy output achieved only 1457 GWh in 2016. The 10-year AEP of P90 predicted
using measured mast data at 1737 GWh/y has 119% share of the total domestic wind energy output
and 16% of the total domestic renewable energy output. The relatively high percentages indicate the
importance of wind farm ZoP 26 for Taiwan. The wind farm has a share of only 0.67% of domestic
electricity consumption; therefore, an enormous demand remains for Taiwan to develop offshore wind
energy in a transition toward a renewable energy system.

Table 12. Comparative efficiency of wind farm ZoP 26 for selected countries in 2016.

Predicted Electricity Generation of ZoP 26 (GWh/y) 1737

Taiwan Netherlands Korea
1
Domestic wind energy output (GWh) 1457 8170 1683
Share of domestic wind energy output 1 (%) 119.2 21.3 103.2
Domestic renewable energy output 1 (GWh) 10,974 13,943 15,930
Share of domestic renewable energy output 1 (%) 15.8 12.5 10.9
Domestic electricity consumption 2 (TWh) 255.5 114.7 544.1
Share of domestic electricity consumption 2 (%) 0.67 1.51 0.31
1 [55], 2 [56].

4. Conclusions
In the present study, we employed multiple data sources to evaluate wind resources and to
optimize wind farm design. The vital wind farm optimization findings and energy production
predictions are as follows.
When the distance between the turbines in a wind farm was decreased from 12D to 6D, the turbine
number increased from 53 to 132, while the capacity factor decreased slightly from 48.6% to 47.6%. The
slope of wake loss increased with the number of installed wind turbines. The wake loss reached 3.5%
for a turbine distance of 6D. At least 118 turbines would be needed to ensure that the project would be
profitable based on NPV evaluation for wind farm optimization.
The AEP predictions became more conservative with increasing probability value from P50 to
P90. AEP predicted for 10 years was slightly higher than that for 25 years. MCP data derived from
the far-offshore MERRA locations with higher levels of wind resource tended to overestimate the
energy production from the target offshore wind farm, which is closer to the coast. MCP data derived
from the inland CWB data with lower levels of wind resources tended to underestimate the power
generation of the target offshore wind farm. MCP data derived from the inland CWB station with
similar levels of wind resources can be used to accurately predict the power generation of the target
offshore wind farm, as the results obtained using the data of the CWB station Lukang proved. The
use of MCP with mast data as target data, together with CWB and MERRA data as reference data,
proved to be a feasible method for predicting offshore wind power generation in places where a mast
is available in a neighboring area. For offshore sites, where a mast is not available in a neighboring
area, LiDAR can be used to provide short-term measurement data in place of mast data.
The results of this study indicate that the prediction of power generation of the target offshore
wind farm was influenced considerably by the wind conditions at the wind measurement site. The
higher the level of wind resources was at the wind measurement site, the higher was the predicted
power generation of the target offshore wind farm, as indicated by the MCP data derived from MERRA.
Similarly, the lower the level of wind resources was at the wind measurement site, the lower was the
predicted power generation of the target offshore wind farm, as indicated by the MCP data derived
from CWB Shenggang. Using the wind measurement data of a wind resource of similar level as that of
the target offshore wind farm, regardless of whether they are mast data or MCP data derived from
CWB and MERRA data, can considerably enhance the prediction accuracy of power generation of the
target offshore wind farm.
Energies 2019, 12, 700 22 of 24

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.-D.Y. and T.-H.L.; Data curation, C.-D.Y., C.-C.L. and C.-C.T.; Formal
analysis, C.-D.Y. and C.-C.L.; Funding acquisition, T.-H.L.; Investigation, C.-D.Y. and C.-C.L.; Methodology, C.-D.Y.
and C.-C.L.; Project administration, C.-D.Y.; Resources, C.-C.T.; Software, C.-D.Y. and C.-C.L.; Supervision, C.-D.Y.
and T.-H.L.; Validation, C.-D.Y.; Writing—original draft, C.-D.Y. and C.-C.L.; Writing—review & editing, C.-D.Y.
Funding: This work was carried out under the financial support of the project entitled “Taiwan Offshore
Wind Accelerator Roadmap for commercial acceptance of measurement technology” (MOST 106-3113-F-006-002)
financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China.
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the support of the project entitled “Development and Application
of TPC Offshore Meteorological and Oceanographic Mast Data” (MOST 107-3113-E-006-013-CC2) financed by
Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China. The authors also express their appreciation to
Taipower for providing measured mast data. This manuscript was edited by Wallace Academic Editing.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. 4C Offshore, Global Offshore Wind Speeds Rankings. 2018. Available online: http://www.4coffshore.com/
windfarms/windspeeds.aspx (accessed on 24 April 2018).
2. Carta, J.A.; Velázquez, S.; Cabrera, P. A review of measure-correlate-predict (MCP) methods used to estimate
long-term wind characteristics at a target site. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 362–400. [CrossRef]
3. Brower, M. Wind Resource Assessment: A Practical Guide to Developing a Wind Project; John Wiley & Sons:
New York, NY, USA, 2012.
4. Shu, Z.R.; Li, Q.S.; Chan, P.W. Statistical analysis of wind characteristics and wind energy potential in Hong
Kong. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 101, 644–657. [CrossRef]
5. Burton, T.; Sharpe, D.; Jenkins, N.; Bossanyi, E. Wind Energy Handbook; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY,
USA, 2001.
6. European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). Windenergy—The Facts. 2009. Available online: https:
//windeurope.org/about-us/new-identity/ (accessed on 1 January 2019).
7. Andrew. Energy Numbers: Capacity Factors at Danish Offshore Wind Farms. 2018. Available online:
http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms (accessed on 12 April 2018).
8. Fuglsang, P.; Thomsen, K. Cost Optimization of Wind Turbines for Large-Scale Offshore WIND farms (No.
RISO-R–1000 (EN)); Risø National Lab.: Roskilde, Denmark, 1998.
9. González, J.S.; Rodriguez, A.G.G.; Mora, J.C.; Santos, J.R.; Payan, M.B. Optimization of wind farm turbines
layout using an evolutive algorithm. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 1671–1681. [CrossRef]
10. Jiang, B.; Liu, F.; Wang, X.; Du, M.; Xu, H.; Zhang, R.; Ding, J.; Shi, Y.; Cai, X. Research progresses in
assessment of China’s offshore wind energy resources. High Technol. Lett. 2016, 26, 808–814.
11. Pimenta, F.; Kempton, W.; Garvine, R. Combining meteorological stations and satellite data to evaluate the
offshore wind power resource of Southeastern Brazil. Renew. Energy 2008, 33, 2375–2387. [CrossRef]
12. Zheng, C.W.; Li, C.Y.; Pan, J.; Liu, M.Y.; Xia, L.L. An overview of global ocean wind energy resource
evaluations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1240–1251. [CrossRef]
13. Salvação, N.; Soares, C.G. Wind resource assessment offshore the Atlantic Iberian coast with the WRF model.
Energy 2018, 145, 276–287. [CrossRef]
14. Miller, A.; Chang, B.; Issa, R.; Chen, G. Review of computer-aided numerical simulation in wind energy.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 122–134. [CrossRef]
15. Charlotte, B.H.; Metrete, B.; Alfredo, P. SAR-Based wind resource statistics in the Baltic Sea. Remote Sens.
2011, 3, 117–144.
16. Kalnay, E.; Kanamitsu, M.; Kistler, R.; Collins, W.; Deaven, D.; Gandin, L.; Iredell, M.; Saha, S.; White, G.;
Woollen, J.; et al. The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 1996, 77, 437–471.
[CrossRef]
17. Uppala, S.M.; KÅllberg, P.W.; Simmons, A.J.; Andrae, U.; da Costa Bechtold, V.; Fiorino, M.; Gibson, J.K.;
Haseler, J.; Hernandez, A.; Kelly, G.A.; et al. The ERA-40 reanalysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 2004, 131,
2961–3012. [CrossRef]
18. Saha, S.; Moorthi, S.; Pan, H.L.; Wu, X.; Wang, J.; Nadiga, S.; Tripp, P.; Kistler, R.; Woollen, J.; Behringer, D.;
et al. The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2010, 91, 1015–1057. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 700 23 of 24

19. Dee, D.P.; Uppala, S.M.; Simmons, A.J.; Berrisford, P.; Poli, P.; Kobayashi, S.; Andrae, U.; Balmaseda, M.A.;
Balsamo, G.; Bauer, P.; et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2011, 137, 553–597. [CrossRef]
20. Chadee, X.T.; Clarke, R.M. Large-scale wind energy potential of the Caribbean region using near-surface
reanalysis data. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 30, 45–58. [CrossRef]
21. Dündar, C.; Inan, D. Investigation of wind energy application possibilities for a specific island (Bozcaada) in
Turkey. Renew. Energy 1996, 9, 822–826. [CrossRef]
22. Lange, B.; Højstrup, J. Evaluation of the wind-resource estimation program WAsP for offshore applications.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2001, 89, 271–291. [CrossRef]
23. Ali, S.M.; Shaban, A.H.; Resen, A.K. Integrating WAsP and GIS Tools for Establishing Best Positions for
Wind Turbines in South Iraq. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Technol. 2014, 3, 588–593.
24. Promsen, W.; Masiri, I.; Janjai, S. Development of microscale wind maps for Phaluay Island, Thailand.
Procedia Eng. 2012, 32, 369–375. [CrossRef]
25. Chantelot, A.; Clarenc, T.; Corrochano, L.; Alegre, M. Meteodyn WT: Site assessment in complex terrain.
In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Brussels, Belgium, 31 March–3 April 2008.
26. Gravdahl, A.R.; Harstveit, K. WindSim–Flow Simulations in Complex Terrain, Assessment of Wind Resources
along the Norwegian Coast. Available online: https://windsim.com/documentation/papers_presentations/
0006_dewek/dewek_2000_proceedings.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2019).
27. Berge, E.; Gravdahl, A.R.; Schelling, J.; Tallhaug, L.; Undheim, O. Wind in complex terrain. A comparison
of WAsP and two CFD-models. In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Athens, Greece,
27 February–2 March 2006.
28. Albrecht, D.I.C.; Klesitz, M. Three-dimensional wind field calculation above orographic complex terrain in
southern Europe. In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Athens, Greece, 27 February–2
March 2006.
29. Llombart, A.; Talayero, A.; Mallet, A.; Telmo, E. Performance analysis of wind resource assessment programs
in complex terrain. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Renewable Energy and Power Quality,
Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 5–7 April 2006.
30. Ramsdell, J.V.; Houston, S.; Wegley, H.L. Measurement strategies for estimating long-term average wind
speed. Sol. Energy 1980, 25, 495–503. [CrossRef]
31. Landberg, L.; Myllerup, L.; Rathmann, O.; Petersen, E.L.; Jørgensen, B.H.; Badger, J.; Mortensen, N.G. Wind
resource estimation-an overview. Wind Energy 2003, 6, 261–271. [CrossRef]
32. Justus, C.G.; Mani, K.; Mikhail, A.S. Interannual and month-to-month variations of wind speed. J. Appl.
Meteorol. 1998, 18, 913–920. [CrossRef]
33. Bowen, A.J.; Mortensen, N.G. WAsP Prediction Errors Due to SITE Orography; Risø National Laboratory:
Roskilde, Denmark, 2004.
34. EMD International A/S, WindPRO 2.7 User Guide. 2010. Available online: www.emd.dk (accessed on
20 April 2018).
35. Taylor, M.; Mackiewic, P.; Brower, M.C.; Markus, M. An analysis of wind resource uncertainty in energy
production estimates. In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, London, UK, 22–25
November 2004.
36. Oliver, A.; Zarling, K. The effect of seasonality on wind speed prediction bias in the plains. In Proceedings of
the AWEA 2010 Wind Power Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 23–25 May 2010.
37. Simisiroglou, N.; Breton, S.-P.; Crasto, G.; Hansen, K.S.; Ivanell, S. Numerical CFD comparison of Lillgrund
employing RANS. Energy Procedia 2014, 53, 342–351. [CrossRef]
38. Castellani, F.; Astolfi, D.; Burlando, M.; Terzi, L. Numerical modelling for wind farm operation assessment
in complex terrain. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2015, 147, 320–329. [CrossRef]
39. EWEA, European Wind Energy Association. Comparative Resource and Energy Yield Assessment
Procedures Exercise Part II. 2013. Available online: http://www.ewea.org/events/workshops/past-
workshops/resource-assessment-2013/ (accessed on 8 March 2018).
40. Crasto, G.; Gravdahl, A.R.; Castellani, F.; Piccioni, E. Wake modeling with the Actuator Disc concept. Energy
Procedia 2012, 24, 385–392. [CrossRef]
41. Castellani, F.; Gravdahl, A.; Crasto, G.; Piccioni, E.; Vignaroli, A. A practical approach in the CFD simulation
of off-shore wind farms through the actuator disc technique. Energy Procedia 2013, 35, 274–284. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 700 24 of 24

42. Lu, C.Y.; Lin, P.H.; Lee, Y.C.; You, Z.C. The measurement of mixing height by Lidar ceilometer at differential
landscapes in Taiwan. Atmos. Sci. 2016, 44, 149–171.
43. Cook, N.J. The Deaves and Harris ABL model applied to heterogeneous terrain. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
1997, 66, 197–214. [CrossRef]
44. Drew, D.R.; Barlow, J.F.; Lane, S.E. Observations of wind speed profiles over Greater London, UK, using a
Doppler LiDAR. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2013, 121, 98–105. [CrossRef]
45. Hwang, C.; Jeon, J.H.; Kim, G.H.; Kim, E.; Park, M.; Yu, I.K. Modelling and simulation of the wake effect in a
wind farm. J. Int. Counc. Electr. Eng. 2015, 5, 74–77. [CrossRef]
46. Garrad Hassan, GL. Uncertainty Analysis. In WindFarmer Theory Manual; Garrad Hassan, G.L., Ed.; Garrad
Hassan & Partners Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2011; pp. 6–39.
47. Kwon, S.D. Uncertainty analysis of wind energy potential assessment. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 856–865.
[CrossRef]
48. Lira, A.; Rosas, P.; Araujo, A.; Castro, N. Uncertainties in the estimate of wind energy production.
In Proceedings of the Energy Economics Iberian Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 4–5 February 2016.
49. Mone, C.; Hand, M.; Bolinger, M.; Rand, J.; Heimiller, D.; Ho, J. 2015 Cost of Wind Energy Review; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2017.
50. Valpy, B.; Freeman, K.; Roberts, A. Future Renewable Energy Costs: Offshore Wind; KIC InnoEnergy: Eindhoven,
The Netherlands, 2016.
51. Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Republic of China (MEAROC). 2017 Feed-In Tariff of Electricity Generated
from Renewable Energy Sources and Its Calculation Formula; MEAROC: Taipei, Taiwan, 2016.
52. Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Republic of China (MEAROC). 2018 Feed-In Tariff of Electricity Generated
from Renewable Energy Sources and Its Calculation Formula; MEAROC: Taipei, Taiwan, 2017.
53. Bachhal, A.S. Optimization of Wind Farm Layout Taking Load Constraints into Account. Master’s Thesis,
Deparment of Engineering and Science, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway, 2017.
54. Lackner, M. Challenges in Offshore Wind Energy Aerodynamics: Floating Wind Turbines and Wind
Farms. The UMass Wind Energy Center. Available online: https://windenergyigert.umass.edu/sites/
windenergyigert/files/Lackner%20IGERT%20seminar%20-%20Aerodynamics%20-%203-1-12.pdf (accessed
on 12 February 2018).
55. IRENA. Renewable Energy Statistics 2018. Available online: https://irena.org/publications/2018/Jul/
Renewable-Energy-Statistics-2018 (accessed on 12 February 2019).
56. IEA. Key World Energy Statistics 2018. Available online: https://webstore.iea.org/key-world-energy-
statistics-2018 (accessed on 12 February 2019).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).