Mind the (spectral) gap: how the temporal resolution of wind data affects multi-decadal wind power forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To forecast wind power generation in the scale of years to decades, outputs from climate models are often used. However, one major limitation of the data projected by these models is their coarse temporal resolution—usually not finer than three hours and sometimes as coarse as one month. Due to the non-linear relationship between wind speed and wind power, and the long forecast horizon considered, small changes in wind speed can result in big changes in projected wind power generation. Our study indicates that the distribution of observed 10 min wind speed data is relatively well preserved using three- or six-hourly instantaneous values. In contrast, daily or monthly values, as well as any averages, including three-hourly averages, are almost never capable of preserving the distribution of the underlying higher resolution data. Assuming that climate models behave in a similar manner to observations, our results indicate that output at three-hourly or six-hourly temporal resolution is high enough for multi-decadal wind power generation forecasting. In contrast, wind speed projections of lower temporal resolution, or averages over any time range, should be handled with care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".