ANEMOS Advanced Wind Power ForecastingOperational Challenges

and On-line Performance

Ignacio Martí1, Georges Kariniotakis2, Vincent Genard2 et al.1Renewable Energies National Center (CENER), 2 ARMINES

imarti@cener.com

European Wind Energy Conference European Wind Energy Conference Milan, 7 - 10 May 2007

2

ANEMOS consortiumANEMOS consortium

3

The operational challenge The operational challenge

Steps carried out in the framework of ANEMOS project to develop ANEMOS prediction system: Comparison of existing prediction models. Definition of end users requirements for a

prediction system (TSOs, utilities, promoters, regulatory bodies).

Development of ANEMOS system. Adaptation of existing and new prediction models

for the integration in ANEMOS Go online!.

4

Generic configuration of the platform.

Structure of ANEMOS platformStructure of ANEMOS platform

Us

er

Inte

rfac

es

Administration Operators

5

CombiCombi

NWPNWP

Methodology for the online Methodology for the online performance analysisperformance analysis

ANEMOS Wind power forecasting modelsANEMOS Wind power forecasting models

ALADINALADIN

Wind farm Wind farm SCADASCADA LocalPredLocalPred PCPCVamemosVamemos NTUANTUA

ANEMOS-AnalysisANEMOS-Analysis

ComparisonComparison

HIRLAMHIRLAMSKIRONSKIRON

PersistencePersistence

6

Studied operational casesStudied operational cases

Five cases analysed

for this paper inSpain and France

Denmark

Ireland

Germany

Greece

France

Spain

UKCanada

Commercially

Studied period:July 2006- February

2007

7

Selected test casesSelected test cases

8

9

Alaiz highly complex terrainAlaiz highly complex terrainNMAE ALAIZ 20060904 - 20070228

SKIRON

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M1NMAE M2NMAE M3

NRMSE ALAIZ 20060904 - 20070228SKIRON

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Horizon (h)

NR

MS

E (

% n

om

ina

l po

we

r)

NRMSE PCNRMSE persistenceNRMSE M1NRMSE M2NRMSE M3

NBIAS ALAIZ 20060904 - 20070228SKIRON

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Horizon (h)

NB

IAS

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NBIAS PCNBIAS persistenceNBIAS M1NBIAS M2NBIAS M3

10

NMAE SOTAVENTO 20061105 - 20070221SKIRON

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M1NMAE M2NMAE M3

NMAE SOTAVENTO 20060605 - 20070221HIRLAM

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M3

Sotavento medium complex Sotavento medium complex terrainterrain

11

NMAE OUPIA 20060705 - 20070228ALADIN

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M3

NMAE OUPIA 20061003-20070228SKIRON

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M1NMAE M2NMAE M3

Oupia low complex terrainOupia low complex terrain

12

NMAE GUERLEDAN 20060705 - 20070228ALADIN

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M3

NMAE GUERLEDAN 20061003-20070109SKIRON

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M1NMAE M2NMAE M3

Guerlédan low complex Guerlédan low complex terrainterrain

13

NMAE SAINT SIMON 20061003 - 20070109SKIRON

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M1NMAE M2NMAE M3

NMAE SAINT SIMON 20060705 - 20070228ALADIN

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Horizon (h)

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

NMAE PCNMAE persistenceNMAE M3NMAE Combi

Saint Simon flat terrainSaint Simon flat terrain

14

Which is the best model for Which is the best model for horizons<6h?horizons<6h?

NMAE h<6 PC Persistence Combi M1 M2 M3

ALAIZ 25,25 15,85   14,45 10,16 12,58

SOTAVENTO Hirlam 10,52 8,49       8,81

SOTAVENTO Skiron 16,65 15,11   10,35 8,96 11,66

OUPIA Aladin 14,22 11,87       10,79

OUPIA Skiron 19,06 15,55   13,94 19,23 12,65

SAINT SIMON Aladin 13,40 9,58 8,19     8,82

SAINT SIMON Skiron 26,08 11,09   9,32 11,73 9,12

GUERLEDAN Aladin 17,15 9,88       8,26

GUERLEDAN Skiron 20,48 10,87   11,11 10,10 9,59

15

Which is the best model for Which is the best model for 6h<horizon<24h?6h<horizon<24h?

NMAE 6<h<24 PC Persistence Combi M1 M2 M3

ALAIZ Skiron 23,50 29,54   16,47 17,25 20,87

SOTAVENTO Hirlam 12,23 16,54       13,16

SOTAVENTO Skiron 15,19 26,71   13,16 12,46 13,68

OUPIA Aladin 14,67 24,06       15,05

OUPIA Skiron 21,09 27,00   15,79 19,66 19,58

SAINT SIMON Aladin 14,05 17,72 9,66     11,76

SAINT SIMON Skiron 24,60 21,15   10,70 12,85 11,27

GUERLEDAN Aladin 16,87 18,30       10,33

GUERLEDAN Skiron 16,08 20,18   10,37 10,31 10,79

16

Which is the best model for Which is the best model for 24h<horizon<48h?24h<horizon<48h?

NMAE 24<h<48 PC Persistence M1 M2 M3

ALAIZ Skiron 28,15 34,76 17,52 15,10 23,08

SOTAVENTO Skiron 18,25 27,87 13,40 14,67 18,22

OUPIA Skiron 21,94 33,72 16,23 19,96 22,46

SAINT SIMON Skiron 27,16 24,04 10,70 12,78 13,08

GUERLEDAN Skiron 19,14 21,70 12,00 11,21 12,75

17

NMAE vs Complexity

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4Terrain complexity

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

M1M2M3Lineal (M2)Lineal (M3)Lineal (M1)

Does the terrain complexity Does the terrain complexity affects?affects?

NMAE vs Complexity

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4Terrain complexity

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

M2M3M1Lineal (M1)Lineal (M3)Lineal (M2)

NMAE vs complexity

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4Degree of complexity

NM

AE

(%

no

min

al p

ow

er)

M1M2M3Lineal (M2)Lineal (M3)Lineal (M1)

18

ConclusionsConclusions

More than 6 months of operational experience of ANEMOS prediction system.

5 test wind farms analyzed. Prediction models are complementary,

giving margin for the improvement of the forecast by combination.

Some models are more sensitive than others to the complexity of the terrain (NWP errors).