A techno‐economic assessment and optimization of Dumat Al‐Jandal wind farm in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One major criterion in the selection of wind farm location is the cost of energy (COE). COE is the cost of producing 1 kWh electric energy on an annual basis. Mathematical model of COE includes site‐specific constants (such as reference height, mean wind speed, shape factors, wind shear coefficient, average temperature, and turbine altitude) and wind turbine parameters (such as maximum power coefficient, total loss of energy, cut‐in/cut‐off wind speed, rated wind speed, rated power, and the fix charge rate). In this work, we evaluate the COE of an onshore wind farm located at Dumat Al‐Jandal (Saudi Arabia) according to the hub height and rotor size. The 99 Vestas turbines can be mounted at a hub height ranging from 105 to 166 m with available rotor diameters of 105, 112, 117, 126, 136, 150, 155, or 163 m. Particle swarm optimization with a normal distribution is used to optimize the COE. Results show that COE is varying around the average value of $0.029335/kWh by ±$0.00021/kWh. The minimum COE was achieved with a rotor diameter of 150 m at hub height of 105 m. COE increases with the increase of hub height. At 105 m‐hub height, COE is almost the same, with a variation of 0.03% (It ranges between $0.029125/kWh and $0.029133/kWh). COE is more sensitive to rotor size than hub height. This investigation revealed that the COE estimation is in a range of 39%–48% greater than that announced COE by the developing project consortium.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".