Enhancing Renewable Energy Forecasting: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Weather Forecast Models and Post-Processing Methods for Belgium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As renewable energy sources continue to account for an increasing proportion of Belgium's energy production, decision making in renewable energy production increasingly relies on accurate numerical weather prediction forecasts. For general applications, forecast validation often focuses on direct comparisons to observations for the whole domains of interest, while in this study we assess model performance specifically related to renewable energy productions. We perform extended verification of relevant variables (wind speed, temperature, solar radiation, etc.) from multiple high-resolution deterministic and ensemble weather forecast models operated in Belgium for the period of May 2021 - June 2023. The forecasts are verified with observational datasets collected from on- and offshore weather stations, masts, lidars, and wind farm observations to comprehensively understand the capabilities of the models, making use of various deterministic and probabilistic skill scores. The results show that during lead times up to two days, although verification metrics differ among models, there are systematic errors in their forecasts for different observation sites. Such errors can often be eliminated by post-processing techniques. Therefore, we extend our verification dataset, with post-processed forecasts corrected by several methods including member-by-member and AI-based approaches. The results of this work will lead to an enhanced understanding of current forecasting skills of the operational models, help to evaluate the effectiveness of goal-oriented post-processing methods, and provide a reference for Belgian sustainable energy stakeholders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".