IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i7p1667-d1367812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation and Bias Correction of the ERA5 Reanalysis over the United States for Wind and Solar Energy Applications

Author

Listed:
  • James M. Wilczak

    (NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USA)

  • Elena Akish

    (NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA)

  • Antonietta Capotondi

    (NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA)

  • Gilbert P. Compo

    (NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA)

Abstract

The applicability of the ERA5 reanalysis for estimating wind and solar energy generation over the contiguous United States is evaluated using wind speed and irradiance variables from multiple observational data sets. After converting ERA5 and observed meteorological variables into wind power and solar power, comparisons demonstrate that significant errors in the ERA5 reanalysis exist that limit its direct applicability for a wind and solar energy analysis. Overall, ERA5-derived solar power is biased high, while ERA5-derived wind power is biased low. During winter, the ERA5-derived solar power is biased high by 23% on average, while on an annual basis, the ERA5-derived wind power is biased low by 20%. ERA5-derived solar power errors are found to have consistent characteristics across the contiguous United States. Errors for the shortest duration and most extreme solar negative anomaly events are relatively small in the ERA5 when completely overcast conditions occur in both the ERA5 and observations. However, longer-duration anomaly events on weekly to monthly timescales, which include partially cloudy days or a mix of cloudy and sunny days, have significant ERA5 errors. At 10 days duration, the ERA5-derived average solar power produced during the largest negative anomaly events is 62% greater than observed. The ERA5 wind speed and derived wind power negative biases are largely consistent across the central and northwestern U.S., and offshore, while the northeastern U.S. has an overall small net bias. For the ERA5-derived most extreme negative anomaly wind power events, at some sites at 10 days duration, the ERA5-derived wind power produced can be less than half of that observed. Corrections to ERA5 are derived using a quantile–quantile method for solar power and linear regression of wind speed for wind power. These methods are shown to avoid potential over-inflation of the reanalysis variability resulting from differences between point measurements and the temporally and spatially smoother reanalysis values. The corrections greatly reduce the ERA5 errors, including those for extreme events associated with wind and solar energy droughts, which will be most challenging for electric grid operation.

Suggested Citation

  • James M. Wilczak & Elena Akish & Antonietta Capotondi & Gilbert P. Compo, 2024. "Evaluation and Bias Correction of the ERA5 Reanalysis over the United States for Wind and Solar Energy Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-36, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:7:p:1667-:d:1367812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/7/1667/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/7/1667/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Draxl, Caroline & Clifton, Andrew & Hodge, Bri-Mathias & McCaa, Jim, 2015. "The Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 355-366.
    2. Giovanni Gualtieri, 2021. "Reliability of ERA5 Reanalysis Data for Wind Resource Assessment: A Comparison against Tall Towers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Mathews, Duncan & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Deane, Paul, 2023. "Systematic bias in reanalysis-derived solar power profiles & the potential for error propagation in long duration energy storage studies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    4. Gualtieri, G., 2022. "Analysing the uncertainties of reanalysis data used for wind resource assessment: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Costoya, X. & Rocha, A. & Carvalho, D., 2020. "Using bias-correction to improve future projections of offshore wind energy resource: A case study on the Iberian Peninsula," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Munir Ali Elfarra & Mustafa Kaya, 2018. "Comparison of Optimum Spline-Based Probability Density Functions to Parametric Distributions for the Wind Speed Data in Terms of Annual Energy Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Zimmerman, Ryan & Panda, Anurag & Bulović, Vladimir, 2020. "Techno-economic assessment and deployment strategies for vertically-mounted photovoltaic panels," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    3. McManamay, Ryan A. & DeRolph, Christopher R. & Surendran-Nair, Sujithkumar & Allen-Dumas, Melissa, 2019. "Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: Guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 880-900.
    4. Denholm, Paul & Nunemaker, Jacob & Gagnon, Pieter & Cole, Wesley, 2020. "The potential for battery energy storage to provide peaking capacity in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1269-1277.
    5. Howard, B. & Waite, M. & Modi, V., 2017. "Current and near-term GHG emissions factors from electricity production for New York State and New York City," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 255-271.
    6. Mike Ludkovski & Glen Swindle & Eric Grannan, 2022. "Large Scale Probabilistic Simulation of Renewables Production," Papers 2205.04736, arXiv.org.
    7. Olaofe, Z.O., 2019. "Quantification of the near-surface wind conditions of the African coast: A comparative approach (satellite, NCEP CFSR and WRF-based)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Zhang, Shuangyi & Li, Xichen, 2021. "Future projections of offshore wind energy resources in China using CMIP6 simulations and a deep learning-based downscaling method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    9. Vinel, Alexander & Mortaz, Ebrahim, 2019. "Optimal pooling of renewable energy sources with a risk-averse approach: Implications for US energy portfolio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 928-939.
    10. Yuan, Ran & Wang, Bo & Mao, Zhixin & Watada, Junzo, 2021. "Multi-objective wind power scenario forecasting based on PG-GAN," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    11. Vu Dinh, Quang & Doan, Quang-Van & Ngo-Duc, Thanh & Nguyen Dinh, Van & Dinh Duc, Nguyen, 2022. "Offshore wind resource in the context of global climate change over a tropical area," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    12. Harrison-Atlas, Dylan & Murphy, Caitlin & Schleifer, Anna & Grue, Nicholas, 2022. "Temporal complementarity and value of wind-PV hybrid systems across the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(P1), pages 111-123.
    13. Sun, Mucun & Feng, Cong & Zhang, Jie, 2020. "Multi-distribution ensemble probabilistic wind power forecasting," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 135-149.
    14. Boffino, Luigi & Conejo, Antonio J. & Sioshansi, Ramteen & Oggioni, Giorgia, 2019. "A two-stage stochastic optimization planning framework to decarbonize deeply electric power systems," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    15. Mai, Trieu & Lopez, Anthony & Mowers, Matthew & Lantz, Eric, 2021. "Interactions of wind energy project siting, wind resource potential, and the evolution of the U.S. power system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    16. Christina Ortega & Amin Younes & Mark Severy & Charles Chamberlin & Arne Jacobson, 2020. "Resource and Load Compatibility Assessment of Wind Energy Offshore of Humboldt County, California," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.
    17. Svitnič, Tibor & Sundmacher, Kai, 2022. "Renewable methanol production: Optimization-based design, scheduling and waste-heat utilization with the FluxMax approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    18. Yuan, Qiheng & Zhou, Keliang & Yao, Jing, 2020. "A new measure of wind power variability with implications for the optimal sizing of standalone wind power systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 538-549.
    19. Taylan G. Topcu & Konstantinos Triantis, 2022. "An ex-ante DEA method for representing contextual uncertainties and stakeholder risk preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 309(1), pages 395-423, February.
    20. Han, Chanok & Vinel, Alexander, 2022. "Reducing forecasting error by optimally pooling wind energy generation sources through portfolio optimization," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PB).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    wind energy; solar energy; ERA5; bias correction; droughts;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:7:p:1667-:d:1367812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.