Abstract
This work deals with the development of Combined Energy Pattern & Power Density Method (CEPPDM) to evaluate the two parameters needed to define Weibull distribution. Five years (2015–2019) wind data recorded each 60-minutes interval at eleven representative sites in Pakistan was used and efficiency of CEPPDM was compared with Energy Pattern Factor Method (EPFM) and Power Density Method (PDM) with the help of MAPE, MSE and R2. Analysis showed that CEPPDM is the most efficient method while EPFM is the least efficient. Furthermore, it was found that RYK is the most lucrative site and Layyah is the weakest site regarding wind potential. Wind rose plots were drawn which showed that the wind mainly blows in the range of 200°–270°.
Highlights
Wind energy is one of suitable, green and economic options for energy generation (Shoaib et al, 2017; Sumair et al, 2020a, 2020d, 2020f)
Various methods applied for the evaluation of parameters of Weibull distribution In this work, one new method has been developed known as Combined Energy Pattern and Power Density Method (CEPPDM) which has been compared with the methods from which it has been developed i.e. Energy Pattern Factor Method (EPFM) and PDM
First set of comparison shows that Combined Energy Pattern & Power Density Method (CEPPDM) shows better performance than EPFM
Summary
Wind energy is one of suitable, green and economic options for energy generation (Shoaib et al, 2017; Sumair et al, 2020a, 2020d, 2020f). Many methods have been reported (Khahro et al, 2014a, 2014b; Khalid Saeed et al, 2019; Sumair et al, 2020d, 2020e) and researchers have compared the performance of these methods and proposed new and better methods, e.g. comparison of seven methods was made for wind resource assessment at two sites in Kiribati, presented in (Aukitino et al, 2017) These methods were compared, and Method of Moment (MOM) was found the best among all which was further used to estimate power density at Tarawa and Abaiang. Wind potential at Canakkale was estimated using three methods i.e. GM, MOM and MLM with Weibull distribution (Akdag and Guler, 2009) These methods were compared using R2 and RMSE and MOM was found the best.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
