Norwegian hindcast archive (NORA3) – A validation of offshore wind resources in the North Sea and Norwegian Sea

• Main Authors: Solbrekke, Ida Marie, Sorteberg, Asgeir, Haakenstad, Hilde
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: 2021
• Subjects: Norwegian Sea
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-22; https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2021-22/

A new high-resolution (3 km) numerical mesoscale weather simulation spanning the period 2004–2018 is validated for offshore wind power purposes for the North Sea and Norwegian Sea. The NORwegian hindcast Archive (NORA3) was created by dynamical downscaling, forced with state-of-the-art hourly atmospheric reanalysis as boundary conditions. A validation of the simulated wind climatology has been carried out to determine the ability of NORA3 to act as a tool for planning future offshore wind power installations. Special emphasis is placed on evaluating offshore wind power-related metrics and the impact of simulated wind speed deviations on the estimated wind power and the related variability. The general conclusion of the validation is that the NORA3 data is rather well suited for wind power estimates, but gives slightly conservative estimates on the offshore wind metrics. Wind speeds are typically 5 % (0.5 ms −1 ) lower than observed wind speeds, giving an underestimation of offshore wind power of 10 %–20 % (equivalent to an underestimation of 3 percentage point in the capacity factor), for a selected turbine type and hub height. The model is biased towards lower wind power estimates because of overestimation of the frequency of low-speed wind events (< 10 ms −1 ) and underestimation of high-speed wind events (> 10 ms −1 ). The hourly wind speed and wind power variability are slightly underestimated in NORA3. However, the number of hours with zero power production (around 12 % of the time) is fairly well captured, while the duration of each of these events is slightly overestimated, leading to 25-year return values for zero-power duration being too high for four of the six sites. The model is relatively good at capturing spatial co-variability in hourly wind power production among the sites. However, the observed decorrelation length was estimated to be 432 km, whereas the model-based length was 19 % longer.