Beyond the First Generation of Wind Modeling for Resource Assessment and Siting: From Meteorology to Uncertainty Quantification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review opinions are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Comments 1: "In this article, the authors review in detail the scientific methods and basic equations for ground-based wind field measurements and summarize the uncertainty quantification for the next generation of wind field measurement and modeling. The limitations of the first-order UQ are discussed and the commonly used Monte Carlo methods are introduced in the context of WRA and EYA. Standardized reporting of WRA and EYA methods used in wind projects, and the UQ calculations associated with these methods, is addressed, taking into account the differences between risk and uncertainty. Overall, it will help the industry to obtain a more objective assessment of the environmental risks of specific wind farm locations. It is more convincing and necessary to make the data from academia enter the industrial process. The whole article is well-argued and well-documented, but there are still some minor problems that need to be improved."

Response 1: The author appreciates the reviewer's positive summary and comments.

Comments 2: "Line 309, The format of the title is not formal enough. It is recommended to modify it."

Response 2: I have modified the section 2.4 heading to "Modelling advancements and their consequences".

Comments 3: "Line 729, 730, 733, 772, 799, 801, The AEP abbreviation does not have a full text and should be explained."

Response 3: The first usage of AEP in section 5.1.3 now includes definition of the abbreviation, and the acronym table has also been updated to include this. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript comprehensively and deeply explores wind modelling for resource assessment and uncertainty quantification in the wind energy industry. It offers valuable insights into the development of wind modelling, from its meteorological origins to current practices, and significantly contributes to the field.

By focusing on the emergence of uncertainty quantification (UQ) in wind energy, considering wind as the key factor and applying meteorology, it fills a gap in the literature. This is especially given the growing importance of UQ in the expanding wind energy industry.

It provides some new perspectives on the limitations of traditional wind resource assessment (WRA) methods and the challenges of more complex models. Additionally, its insights into the statistical implications of data averaging and splitting in WRA methodologies could inspire new research directions.

Overall, this manuscript meets the journal's high standards and is recommended for publication. Its innovative content, scientific rigor, and reliable results make it a valuable asset to the wind energy research community.

some comments.

1. While the paper has some figures, more detailed flowcharts or diagrams could further clarify the organization of this paper.
2. Notation consistency is an issue in the paper. In some equations, subscripts and superscripts are used in a confusing way, like "fc" in L99/L104. Also, some notations, such as "τ0" in L98, lack explanations.
3. The paper discusses the complexity of models like RANS and mesoscale NWP in uncertainty quantification but doesn't give more explanation of sensitivity analysis. Understanding how input variable changes affect model outputs is crucial for assessing model reliability.
4. The paper briefly mentions climate change, but a more comprehensive discussion on how climate change affects models and uncertainty estimates would make the paper more relevant in climate-related research.
5. The wind energy industry is evolving with emerging technologies like floating wind turbines and advanced wind farm control systems. Incorporating such discussions would update the paper and expand its scope.
6. The paper addresses uncertainty quantification in different models but doesn't fully explore uncertainty propagation across scales in multiscale modelling. A more in-depth analysis would enhance the understanding of uncertainty in real-world wind energy applications.
7. The paper mentions challenges in wind modelling for complex terrain but lacks detailed case studies. Case studies with real - world data from complex terrain sites could offer practical insights into handling uncertainties in such areas.

Author Response

Comment 0: "This manuscript comprehensively and deeply explores wind modelling for resource assessment and uncertainty quantification in the wind energy industry. It offers valuable insights into the development of wind modelling, from its meteorological origins to current practices, and significantly contributes to the field.
By focusing on the emergence of uncertainty quantification (UQ) in wind energy, considering wind as the key factor and applying meteorology, it fills a gap in the literature. This is especially given the growing importance of UQ in the expanding wind energy industry.
It provides some new perspectives on the limitations of traditional wind resource assessment (WRA) methods and the challenges of more complex models. Additionally, its insights into the statistical implications of data averaging and splitting in WRA methodologies could inspire new research directions.
Overall, this manuscript meets the journal's high standards and is recommended for publication. Its innovative content, scientific rigor, and reliable results make it a valuable asset to the wind energy research community."

Response 0: The author would like to thank this reviewer for their positive assessment above, as well as constructive criticism below.

Comment 1: "While the paper has some figures, more detailed flowcharts or diagrams could further clarify the organization of this paper."

Response 1: The  author considered adding more, but due to both the length of the paper and potential ambiguities introduced, decided against such.  Is the reviewer suggesting a single overview figure? 

Comment 2: "Notation consistency is an issue in the paper. In some equations, subscripts and superscripts are used in a confusing way, like "fc" in L99/L104. Also, some notations, such as "τ0" in L98, lack explanations.."

Response 2: The author has taken care to use specific subscripts where needed, to avoid ambiguous or confusing notation while maintaining consistency; in the case of "τ₀/ρ₀" on line 98, note that later in the sentence, the subscript '₀' is explained.  However, to help delineate one potentially confusing subscript choice and improve readability, the subscript "_Cs" (with capital/upper-case "C") in section 2.4.1 has been replaced by "_cs".

Comment 3: "The paper discusses the complexity of models like RANS and mesoscale NWP in uncertainty quantification but doesn't give more explanation of sensitivity analysis. Understanding how input variable changes affect model outputs is crucial for assessing model reliability."

Response 3: This is discussed in sections 4 and 5.1.3.  However, noting the reviewer's comment here, I pointed to these sections at the end of the RANS section (2.4.1) and mesoscale section (2.4.2) — along with some newly added sentences about such, in order to clarify and better connect the concepts involved. 

Comment 4: "The paper briefly mentions climate change, but a more comprehensive discussion on how climate change affects models and uncertainty estimates would make the paper more relevant in climate-related research."

Response 4: This article’s scope concerns wind energy with emphasis on wind resources, not climate change, particularly because the climate aspect is quite small relative to other wind resource unceratinties.  However, to better address this I have refined the sub-section involving climate change (new lines 755–757) and added two references which detail and review this area. 

Comment 5: "The wind energy industry is evolving with emerging technologies like floating wind turbines and advanced wind farm control systems. Incorporating such discussions would update the paper and expand its scope."

Response 5: This paper is about the wind aspect and not the operational side, as mentioned in the introduction and section 5.1, so advanced windfarm control does not arise. But given your suggestions have added a bit under section 5.1 noting advanced control systems.  Offshore floating measurements were already mentioned in the final paragraph of section 4, but I now note the potential need for UQ of wave parameters for floating installations.

Comment 6: "The paper addresses uncertainty quantification in different models but doesn't fully explore uncertainty propagation across scales in multiscale modelling. A more in-depth analysis would enhance the understanding of uncertainty in real-world wind energy applications."

Response 6: Propagation of uncertainty across scales is an underdeveloped academic pursuit in wind resources at this point, with no real application as yet; interscale transfer of energy has been investigated only somewhat sparsely for atmospheric flows, let alone uncertainty. Due to the lack of substantive progress or application in this area, I currently leave this for future publications.

Comment 7: "The paper mentions challenges in wind modelling for complex terrain but lacks detailed case studies. Case studies with real - world data from complex terrain sites could offer practical insights into handling uncertainties in such areas."

Response 7: Case studies in complex terrain tend to be confidential, and a large number of them are needed to give a coherent picture due to the many variables involved — as discussed in the article.  Further, including such with more detail would inflate the length of this already long review paper, while being somewhat counter to the overall "review" aspect and character of the work.  Consequently, this author wishes to avoid such a cumbersome addition, but appreciates the suggestion.  An entire (long) review article could be written about this topic alone.