Analysis of Seasonal Wind Energy Potential on Zanzibar Coastal Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objectives of this research were to numerically analyze the potential for seasonal wind power (WP), assess wind direction, and select the most effective wind turbine (WT) for installation at the research site. Wind data were collected half-hourly from a branch of the Tanzania Meteorological Authority nearest to the research site. The collected data were analyzed using a double-parameter Weibull distribution (WD) model, where the standard deviation (SD) method was used to fit the WD. The results revealed that the site experienced strong winds within the range of 4.5–7 m/s between the hours of 05:00 - 20:00, with the most likely seasonal wind speed (WS) ranging from 5–7 m/s, while the mean seasonal WS was 9.07–12.14 m/s. The highest possible wind energy density (wED) of 23.3 GWh/m2 at a hub height of 10 m occurred during winter, followed by spring, autumn, and summer, with 6.39, 6.32, and 3.33 GWh/m2, respectively. The annual wED was > 13.52 GWh/m2, with a typical month-to-month energy of 1.13 GWh/m2. Finally, the study concluded that the recommended WT model (POLARIS P62-1000) was the best choice for installation at the study site due to its sustainable WS and WP potential. Based on the findings of this research, which show that the site has sustainable seasonal wind resources, it is suggested that future wind research be carried out to extend the dataset to ensure the long-term seasonal wind pattern at the site. Doi: 10.28991/HIJ-2024-05-02-08 Full Text: PDF
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".