Evaluation of Wind and Wave Estimates from CMEMS Reanalysis for Brazil’s Offshore Energy Resource Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author(s) presented the offshore resource assessment using CMEMS at Brazilian coastal sites. I admire the authors' efforts in the preparation of present work. I read the article carefully and can recommend it for a possible publication. However, following comments must be considered carefully before this recommendation.

1.      Make abbreviation section to describe notations and short alphabets.

2.      Make a graphical abstract.

3.      Give a highlight section with 3-5 points.

4.      Write few more current literature surveys for various methods of wind resource assessments on offshore and onshore sites, in the introduction section. You may consider few of the followings:

a.       Gautam, Atul, Vilas Warudkar, and J. L. Bhagoria. "A comparative analysis of wind characteristics for distinct terrains of India." Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 52 (2022): 102089.

b.      Sharma, Pramod Kumar, Atul Gautam, Vilas Warudkar, Siraj Ahmed, and J. L. Bhagoria. "Analysis of wind characteristics parameters with the application of lidar and mast." Wind Energy 24, no. 5 (2021): 413-427.

c.       Sharma, Pramod Kumar, Atul Gautam, Prashant Baredar, Vilas Warudkar, J. L. Bhagoria, and Siraj Ahmed. "Analysis of terrain of site Mamatkheda Ratlam through wind modeling tool ArcGIS and WAsP." Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021): 5661-5665.

d.      Gautam, Atul, Vilas Warudkar, and J. L. Bhagoria. "Recurrent Neural Network Analysis for Accurate Extrapolation of the Wind Velocity." In Advances in Clean Energy Technologies, pp. 453-462. Springer, Singapore, 2021.

e.       Gautam, Atul, Pramod Kumar Sharma, Prashant Baredar, Vilas Warudkar, J. L. Bhagoria, and Siraj Ahmed. "Modeling of atmospheric boundary flows using experimental investigation over complex terrain in a non-neutral condition." Materials Today: Proceedings 46 (2021): 5681-5686.

5.      Make the conclusion point wise and easy to understand for readers.

6.      Provide data analysis, pre-processing, data cleaning part in manuscript.

7.      Please present Q-Q plot to strengthen the validation of PDFs.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

first, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Please find below all the response to your suggestions/recommendations.

1. Make abbreviation section to describe notations and short alphabets.

Done. We have created an abbreviation section after the conclusion section.

2. Make a graphical abstract.

Thanks so much for the suggestion, but we've chosen not to produce the graphic abstract in this manuscript.

3. Give a highlight section with 3-5 points.

Done. We have created key points in the first page giving some highlights.

4. Write few more current literature surveys for various methods of wind resource assessments on offshore and onshore sites, in the introduction section. You may consider few of the followings:
   • Gautam, Atul, Vilas Warudkar, and J. L. Bhagoria. "A comparative analysis of wind characteristics for distinct terrains of India." Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments52 (2022): 102089.
   • Sharma, Pramod Kumar, Atul Gautam, Vilas Warudkar, Siraj Ahmed, and J. L. Bhagoria. "Analysis of wind characteristics parameters with the application of lidar and mast." Wind Energy24, no. 5 (2021): 413-427.
   • Sharma, Pramod Kumar, Atul Gautam, Prashant Baredar, Vilas Warudkar, J. L. Bhagoria, and Siraj Ahmed. "Analysis of terrain of site Mamatkheda Ratlam through wind modeling tool ArcGIS and WAsP." Materials Today: Proceedings46 (2021): 5661-5665.
   • Gautam, Atul, Vilas Warudkar, and J. L. Bhagoria. "Recurrent Neural Network Analysis for Accurate Extrapolation of the Wind Velocity." In Advances in Clean Energy Technologies, pp. 453-462. Springer, Singapore, 2021.
   • Gautam, Atul, Pramod Kumar Sharma, Prashant Baredar, Vilas Warudkar, J. L. Bhagoria, and Siraj Ahmed. "Modeling of atmospheric boundary flows using experimental investigation over complex terrain in a non-neutral condition." Materials Today: Proceedings46 (2021): 5681-5686.
   • Make the conclusion point wise and easy to understand for readers.

Done.

6. Provide data analysis, pre-processing, data cleaning part in manuscript.

Done. Details were added in the "Data Availability Statement".

7. Please present Q-Q plot to strengthen the validation of PDFs.

Thanks so much for the important recommendation, but we've chosen not to calculate the Q-Q plot now due the time to produce these plots and the deadline to resubmit it.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors conducted a systematical data analysis from Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS) on the wind and wave characteristics.  In this study, the author focused on spatiotemporal hydrodynamic statistics, which could be further used for the evaluation of future offshore energy park locations.  The materials presented in this manuscript are very interesting.  The manuscript is in general very well written.  Nevertheless, I have some comments and suggestions.  I recommend its publication in Wind after a minor revision with the following comments addressed.

1.      In the abstract, RMSE should stand for root-mean-square error, and MSE should stand for mean-square error.  Also in Section 2.2.

2.      Under Equation 1, ‘U’ should be ‘U_z’, ‘k’ should be ‘K’, and ‘Z0’ should be ‘Z_0’.  Pay attention to the subscript format.

3.      In Equation 1, is the drag coefficient related to the wind speed or Reynolds number?  I suggest that the authors provide some detailed descriptions of how its value (1.4 · 10-3) is obtained.

4.      Section 2.3 looks incomplete to me.  Especially there is only one subsection 2.3.1 following Section 2.3.  I suggest expanding this section. For example, when the authors introduce the energy density, it would be helpful to include its definition and discuss its applications.

5.      As for coefficient of determination, ‘R2’ is used in some places and ‘R^2’(superscript) is used in other places.  They should be consistent.

6.      In Figures 2 and 3, what does the black dashed line (the reference) mean?  How is it calculated?

7.      What is the physical meaning of the Weibull distribution used to fit data in Figure 6?

8.      Perhaps this can be the future research, but I suggest that the author could include a discussion of the uncertainty quantification on the present data reanalysis.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

first, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Please find below all the response to your suggestions/recommendations.

1. In the abstract, RMSE should stand for root-mean-square error, and MSE should stand for mean-square error.  Also in Section 2.2.

Done. It was fixed in the manuscript..

2. Under Equation 1, ‘U’ should be ‘U_z’, ‘k’ should be ‘K’, and ‘Z0’ should be ‘Z_0’.  Pay attention to the subscript format.

Done. It was fixed in the manuscript.

3. In Equation 1, is the drag coefficient related to the wind speed or Reynolds number?  I suggest that the authors provide some detailed descriptions of how its value (1.4 · 10-3) is obtained.

Done. A better description was provided.

4. Section 2.3 looks incomplete to me.  Especially there is only one subsection 2.3.1 following Section 2.3.  I suggest expanding this section. For example, when the authors introduce the energy density, it would be helpful to include its definition and discuss its applications.

Done. A detailed description was provided.

5. As for coefficient of determination, ‘R2’ is used in some places and ‘R^2’(superscript) is used in other places.  They should be consistent.

Done. It was fixed in the manuscript.

6. In Figures 2 and 3, what does the black dashed line (the reference) mean?  How is it calculated?

Done. The black dashed line is the reference for observed data. A detailed description was provided in the manuscript.

7. What is the physical meaning of the Weibull distribution used to fit data in Figure 6?

Extract parameters that allow the calculation of energy density.

8. Perhaps this can be the future research, but I suggest that the author could include a discussion of the uncertainty quantification on the present data reanalysis.

Thanks so much for this important suggestion. This will certainly be an issue to be explored in future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have proposed the “Evaluation of wind and wave estimates from CMEMS reanalysis for Brazil’s offshore energy resource assessment. The topic is timely and relevant to the journal's scope, and it is of interest to scholars. However, the paper is not ready for final approval in its current form. The authors should take the following concerns seriously, as they will help to improve the overall quality of the paper.

1. Relevance to the scope of Journal:- Yes

2. Originality:- Novelty must be discussed in detail

3. Engineering/scientific relevance: Yes

4. Doubtful or controversial arguments:- No

5. Completeness of the reported work:- Yes

6. Adequacy of acknowledgment of the past related work by others, in the reference list:- Yes

7. Length:- Length is justified.

Abstract: Abstract needs to be strengthened.

Introduction/Methodology/Results and discussion:-

1. The overall structure of the paper shall be improved.
2. The offshore wind resource assessment must be discussed in detail.  
3. The Introduction shall be improved for typos.
4. The mathematical symbols shall be uniform. 

Conclusion: Conclusion shall be improved for typos.

References: Formatting must be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Based on the suggestions/recommendations of the other reviewers together with your own, I believe that all or most of the issues raised have been resolved, especially typos errors in the introduction, methodology and conclusions sections. Also we have corrected the formatting of citations and references.

Kind regards

Reviewer 4 Report

The author adopts the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS) reanalysis to evaluate the wind speed and significant wave height. The technical approach is acceptable, however, some small issues need to be fixed before it can be allowed for publication,

1 The language should be improved.

2 There are some typos that need to be fixed, for example ‘buoy’ and ‘bouy’.

3 The citation format is not consistent, please choose one format and make it the same everywhere else in the manuscript.

4 The counting format is not consistent, for example, in Table 1, some have two digits and some only have one.

5 Please re-format the figures. For example, the font size of Figures 2 and Figure 3 are too small. For Figure 4 and Figure 5 the value should be placed next to the location (there is enough space), instead of just giving a color bar. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Please find below all the answers to your suggestions/recommendations.

1 The language should be improved.

Done. We have made improvements to the language.

2 There are some typos that need to be fixed, for example ‘buoy’ and ‘bouy’.

Done. It was fixed in the manuscript.

3 The citation format is not consistent, please choose one format and make it the same everywhere else in the manuscript.

Done. We have formatted and fixed all citations in the manuscript.

4 The counting format is not consistent, for example, in Table 1, some have two digits and some only have one.

Done. It was fixed in the manuscript.

5 Please re-format the figures. For example, the font size of Figures 2 and Figure 3 are too small. For Figure 4 and Figure 5 the value should be placed next to the location (there is enough space), instead of just giving a color bar. 

Done. We re-done the font size of Figures 2 and 3, and also we added the values next to the locations.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript can be allowed for publication. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments for work improvement. All your comments have been done.

Best regards