• Bell, B., and Coauthors, 2021: The ERA5 global reanalysis: Preliminary extension to 1950. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 147B, 41864227, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benestad, R. E., D. Chen, A. Mezghani, L. Fan, and K. Parding, 2015: On using principal components to represent stations in empirical–statistical downscaling. Tellus, 67A, 28326, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v67.28326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Berkovic, S., 2018: Wind regimes and their relation to synoptic variables using self-organizing maps. Adv. Sci. Res., 15, 19, https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-15-1-2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bermúdez, M., L. Cea, E. Van Uytven, P. Willems, J. F. Farfán, and J. Puertas, 2020: A robust method to update local river inundation maps using global climate model output and weather typing based statistical downscaling. Water Resour. Manage., 34, 43454362, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02673-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Broderick, C., and R. Fealy, 2015: An analysis of the synoptic and climatological applicability of circulation type classifications for Ireland. Int. J. Climatol., 35, 481505, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3996.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brunner, L., A. G. Pendergrass, F. Lehner, A. L. Merrifield, R. Lorenz, and R. Knutti, 2020: Reduced global warming from CMIP6 projections when weighting models by performance and independence. Earth Syst. Dyn., 11, 9951012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cannon, A. J., 2020: Reductions in daily continental-scale atmospheric circulation biases between generations of global climate models: CMIP5 to CMIP6. Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 064006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7e4f.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coburn, J., 2021: Climatological teleconnections with wind energy in a midcontinental region. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 60, 305322, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-20-0203.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coburn, J., and S. C. Pryor, 2021: Differential credibility of climate modes in CMIP6. J. Climate, 34, 81458164, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0359.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davy, R. J., M. J. Woods, C. J. Russell, and P. A. Coppin, 2010: Statistical downscaling of wind variability from meteorological fields. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 135, 161175, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-009-9462-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dixon, K. W., J. R. Lanzante, M. J. Nath, K. Hayhoe, A. Stoner, A. Radhakrishnan, V. Balaji, and C. F. Gaitán, 2016: Evaluating the stationarity assumption in statistically downscaled climate projections: Is past performance an indicator of future results? Climatic Change, 135, 395408, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1598-0.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dixon, P. G., M. Allen, S. N. Gosling, D. M. Hondula, V. Ingole, R. Lucas, and J. Vanos, 2016: Perspectives on the synoptic climate classification and its role in interdisciplinary research. Geogr. Compass, 10, 147164, https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12264.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ekström, M., M. R. Grose, and P. H. Whetton, 2015: An appraisal of downscaling methods used in climate change research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 6, 301319, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.339.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fabiano, F., V. L. Meccia, P. Davini, P. Ghinassi, and S. Corti, 2021: A regime view of future atmospheric circulation changes in northern mid-latitudes. Wea. Climate Dyn., 2, 163180, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-163-2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fernandez-Granja, J. A., A. Casanueva, J. Bedia, and J. Fernandez, 2021: Improved atmospheric circulation over Europe by the new generation of CMIP6 Earth System Models. Climate Dyn., 56, 35273540, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05652-9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gibson, P. B., and N. J. Cullen, 2015: Regional variability in New Zealand’s wind resource linked to synoptic-scale circulation: Implications for generation reliability. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 54, 944958, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0273.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gibson, P. B., D. E. Waliser, B. Guan, M. J. DeFlorio, F. M. Ralph, and D. L. Swain, 2020: Ridging associated with drought across the western and southwestern United States: Characteristics, trends, and predictability sources. J. Climate, 33, 24852508, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0439.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gramcianinov, C. B., R. M. Campos, R. de Camargo, K. I. Hodges, C. G. Soares, and P. L. da Silva Dias, 2020: Analysis of Atlantic extratropical storm tracks characteristics in 41 years of ERA5 and CFSR/CFSv2 databases. Ocean Eng., 216, 108111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hawkins, E., and R. Sutton, 2009: The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate projections. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 10951108, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hawkins, E., D. Frame, L. Harrington, M. Joshi, A. King, M. Rojas, and R. Sutton, 2020: Observed emergence of the climate change signal: From the familiar to the unknown. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086259, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hersbach, H., and Coauthors, 2020: The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146A, 19992049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Horton, P., 2021: Analogue methods and ERA5: Benefits and pitfalls. Int. J. Climatol., 42, 40784096, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7484.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huang, H.-Y., S. B. Capps, S.-C. Huang, and A. Hall, 2015: Downscaling near-surface wind over complex terrain using a physically-based statistical modeling approach. Climate Dyn., 44, 529542, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2137-1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hutengs, C., and M. Vohland, 2016: Downscaling land surface temperatures at regional scales with random forest regression. Remote Sens. Environ., 178, 127141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.03.006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jones, P. D., C. Harpham, and K. R. Briffa, 2013: Lamb weather types derived from reanalysis products. Int. J. Climatol., 33, 11291139, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3498.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirchner‐Bossi, N., R. García‐Herrera, L. Prieto, and R. M. Trigo, 2015: A long‐term perspective of wind power output variability. Int. J. Climatol., 35, 26352646, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lanzante, J. R., K. W. Dixon, M. J. Nath, C. E. Whitlock, and D. Adams-Smith, 2018: Some pitfalls in statistical downscaling of future climate. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, 791803, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0046.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, J. C. Y., and M. J. Fields, 2021: An overview of wind-energy-production prediction bias, losses, and uncertainties. Wind Energy Sci., 6, 311365, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-311-2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lehner, F., C. Deser, N. Maher, J. Marotzke, E. M. Fischer, L. Brunner, R. Knutti, and E. Hawkins, 2020: Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6. Earth Syst. Dyn., 11, 491508, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-491-2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lledó, L., O. Bellprat, F. J. Doblas‐Reyes, and A. Soret, 2018: Investigating the effects of Pacific sea surface temperatures on the wind drought of 2015 over the United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 123, 48374849, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mauritsen, T., and Coauthors, 2019: Developments in the MPI‐M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI‐ESM1.2) and its response to increasing CO2. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 9981038, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Millstein, D., J. Solomon-Culp, M. Wang, P. Ullrich, and C. Collier, 2019: Wind energy variability and links to regional and synoptic scale weather. Climate Dyn., 52, 48914906, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4421-y.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Neill, B. C., and Coauthors, 2017: The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environ. Change, 42, 169180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., and R. J. Barthelmie, 2014: Hybrid downscaling of wind climates over the eastern USA. Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 024013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/2/024013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., and J. T. Schoof, 2019: A hierarchical analysis of the impact of methodological decisions on statistical downscaling of daily precipitation and air temperatures. Int. J. Climatol., 39, 28802900, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5990.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., and J. T. Schoof, 2020: Differential credibility assessment for statistical downscaling. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 59, 13331349, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0296.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., J. T. Schoof, and R. J. Barthelmie, 2005: Empirical downscaling of wind speed probability distributions. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D19109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005899.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., T. J. Shepherd, and R. J. Barthelmie, 2018: Interannual variability of wind climates and wind turbine annual energy production. Wind Energy Sci., 3, 651665, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-651-2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., R. J. Barthelmie, and T. J. Shepherd, 2020a: 20% of US electricity from wind will have limited impacts on system efficiency and regional climate. Sci. Rep., 10, 541, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57371-1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., F. W. Letson, and R. J. Barthelmie, 2020b: Variability in wind energy generation across the contiguous United States. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 59, 20212039, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-20-0162.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., R. J. Barthelmie, M. S. Bukovsky, L. R. Leung, and K. Sakaguchi, 2020c: Climate change impacts on wind power generation. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 1, 627643, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0101-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pryor, S. C., J. J. Coburn, R. J. Barthelmie, and T. J. Shepherd, 2023: Projecting future energy production from operating wind farms in North America. Part I: Dynamical downscaling. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 62, 6380, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22-0044.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Raynaud, D., B. Hingray, G. Evin, A.-C. Favre, and J. Chardon, 2020: Assessment of meteorological extremes using a synoptic weather generator and a downscaling model based on analogues. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 43394352, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4339-2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sailor, D. J., M. Smith, and M. Hart, 2008: Climate change implications for wind power resources in the northwest United States. Renewable Energy, 33, 23932406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.01.007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schoof, J. T., and S. C. Pryor, 2014: Assessing the fidelity of AOGCM‐simulated relationships between large‐scale modes of climate variability and wind speeds. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 97199734, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021601.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sellar, A. A., and Coauthors, 2020: Implementation of U.K. Earth System Models for CMIP6. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2019MS001946, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001946.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shaw, T. A., and Coauthors, 2016: Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change. Nat. Geosci., 9, 656664, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shepherd, T., J. J. Coburn, R. J. Barthelmie, and S. C. Pryor, 2022: Exploring ENSO-induced anomalies over North America in historical and future climate simulations that use HadGEM2-ESM output to drive WRF. Climate, 10, 117, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10080117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tatebe, H., and Coauthors, 2019: Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6. Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 27272765, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Uytven, E., J. D. Niel, and P. Willems, 2020: Uncovering the shortcomings of a weather typing method. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 26712686, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2671-2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Voldoire, A., and Coauthors, 2019: Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK experiments with CNRM-CM6‐1. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 21772213, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, J., and X. Su, 2011: An improved k-means clustering algorithm. Proc. 2011 IEEE Third Int. Conf. on Communication Software and Networks, Xi’an, China, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 44–46, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6014384.

  • Wang, M., P. Ullrich, and D. Millstein, 2018: The future of wind energy in California: Future projections with the variable-resolution CESM. Renewable Energy, 127, 242257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.031.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilks, D. S., 2011: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. Vol 100, Academic Press, 704 pp.

  • Wohland, J., D. Folini, and B. Pickering, 2021: Wind speed stilling and its recovery due to internal climate variability. Earth Syst. Dyn., 12, 12391251, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1239-2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zscheischler, J., M. D. Mahecha, and S. Harmeling, 2012: Climate classifications: The value of unsupervised clustering. Procedia Comput. Sci., 9, 897906, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.04.096.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 434 434 48
Full Text Views 88 88 7
PDF Downloads 113 113 11

Projecting Future Energy Production from Operating Wind Farms in North America. Part II: Statistical Downscaling

Jacob CoburnaDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Search for other papers by Jacob Coburn in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0953-8117
and
Sara C. PryoraDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Search for other papers by Sara C. Pryor in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4847-3440
Restricted access

Abstract

Capacity factors (CFs) derived from daily expected power at 22 operating wind farms in different regions of North America are used as predictands to train statistical downscaling algorithms using output from ERA5. The statistical downscaling models are then used to make CF projections for a suite of CMIP6 Earth System Models (ESMs). Downscaling is performed using a hybrid statistical approach that employs synoptic types derived using k-means clustering applied to sea level pressure fields with variance corrections applied as a function of the pressure gradient intensity. ESMs exhibit marked variability in terms of the skill with which the frequency of synoptic types and pressure gradients are reproduced relative to ERA5, and that differential skill is used to infer differential credibility in the associated CF projections. Projections of median annual mean CF [P50(CF)] in each 20-yr period from 1980 to 2099 show evidence of declines at most wind farms except in parts of the southern Great Plains, although the magnitude of the changes is strongly dependent on the ESM. For example, P50(CF) in 2080–99 deviate from those in 1980–99 by from −3.1 to +0.2 percentage points in the Northeast. The largest-magnitude declines in P50(CF) ranging from −3.9 to −2 percentage points are projected for the southern West Coast. CF trends exhibit marked seasonality and are strongly linked to changes in the relative intensity of future synoptic patterns, with much less impact from shifts in the occurrence of synoptic types over time. Internal climate modes continue to play a significant role in inducing interannual variability in wind power production, even under high radiative forcing scenarios.

Significance Statement

We describe how future climate changes may affect wind resources and wind power generation. Near-term changes in projected wind power electricity generation potential at operating wind farms over North America are small, but by the end of the current century electricity production is projected to decrease in many areas but may increase in parts of the southern Great Plains. The amount of change in projected wind power production is a strong function of the Earth system model that is downscaled and also depends on the continued presence of internally forced climate variability. An additional dependence on the amount of greenhouse gas–induced global warming indicates the transition of the energy sector to low-carbon sources may assist in maintaining the abundant U.S. wind resource.

© 2023 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Jacob Coburn, jjc457@cornell.edu

Abstract

Capacity factors (CFs) derived from daily expected power at 22 operating wind farms in different regions of North America are used as predictands to train statistical downscaling algorithms using output from ERA5. The statistical downscaling models are then used to make CF projections for a suite of CMIP6 Earth System Models (ESMs). Downscaling is performed using a hybrid statistical approach that employs synoptic types derived using k-means clustering applied to sea level pressure fields with variance corrections applied as a function of the pressure gradient intensity. ESMs exhibit marked variability in terms of the skill with which the frequency of synoptic types and pressure gradients are reproduced relative to ERA5, and that differential skill is used to infer differential credibility in the associated CF projections. Projections of median annual mean CF [P50(CF)] in each 20-yr period from 1980 to 2099 show evidence of declines at most wind farms except in parts of the southern Great Plains, although the magnitude of the changes is strongly dependent on the ESM. For example, P50(CF) in 2080–99 deviate from those in 1980–99 by from −3.1 to +0.2 percentage points in the Northeast. The largest-magnitude declines in P50(CF) ranging from −3.9 to −2 percentage points are projected for the southern West Coast. CF trends exhibit marked seasonality and are strongly linked to changes in the relative intensity of future synoptic patterns, with much less impact from shifts in the occurrence of synoptic types over time. Internal climate modes continue to play a significant role in inducing interannual variability in wind power production, even under high radiative forcing scenarios.

Significance Statement

We describe how future climate changes may affect wind resources and wind power generation. Near-term changes in projected wind power electricity generation potential at operating wind farms over North America are small, but by the end of the current century electricity production is projected to decrease in many areas but may increase in parts of the southern Great Plains. The amount of change in projected wind power production is a strong function of the Earth system model that is downscaled and also depends on the continued presence of internally forced climate variability. An additional dependence on the amount of greenhouse gas–induced global warming indicates the transition of the energy sector to low-carbon sources may assist in maintaining the abundant U.S. wind resource.

© 2023 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Jacob Coburn, jjc457@cornell.edu
Save