The Impacts of Wind Speed Trends and Long-term Variability in Relation to Hydroelectric Reservoir Inflows on Wind Power in the Pacific Northwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of wind power is growing rapidly in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) due to environmental concerns, decreasing costs, strong wind speeds, and the desire to minimize the impacts of streamflow variability on electricity prices and system flexibility through diversification. In hydroelectric dominated systems, like the PNW, the benefits of wind power can be maximized by accounting for the relationship between long term variability in wind speeds and reservoir inflows. Clean energy policies in British Columbia (BC) make the benefits of increased wind power generation during low streamflow periods particularly large by preventing the overbuilding of marginal hydroelectric projects to fulfill its legislated self-sufficiency requirements. The goal of this work was to help maximize the value of wind power by quantifying the long-term relationships between wind speed and streamflow behavior in BC. Wind speed data from the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) and cumulative usable inflows (CUI) from BC Hydro were used to analyze 10m wind speed and wind density (WD) trends, WD-CUI correlations, and WD anomalies during low and high inflow periods in the PNW (40°N to 65°N, 110°W to 135°W) from 1979-2010. Statistically significant positive wind speed and density trends were found for most of the PNW, with the largest increases along the Pacific Coast. WD-CUI correlations were weakly positive for most regions, with the highest values along the US coast (r ~0.55), generally weaker correlations to the north, and negative correlations (r ~ -0.25) along BC’s North Coast. When considering seasonal relationships, the spring freshet was coincident with lower WD anomalies west of the Rocky Mountains and higher WDs to the east. A similar but opposite pattern was observed for low inflow winter months. When considering interannual variability, the lowest inflow years experienced positive WD anomalies (up to 40% increases) for the North Coast. In the highest inflow years, positive WD anomalies were widespread in the US and in smaller patches of central BC. By accounting for regional and temporal differences in the relationship between wind (WD) and streamflow (CUI) behaviour during wind farm site selection, the benefits of energy diversification can be maximized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".