Evaluation of wind potential in a region of southern Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X30711Keywords:
Wind potential, Wind speed, Weibull probability distributionAbstract
Knowledge of wind behavior plays a key role in the production of wind energy, in ambient ventilation and in air quality. In this study the wind speed behavior in Cachoeira do Sul (RS) is analyzed. Wind speed data was measured by a sonic anemometer and it was used to estimate the potential for power generation in the period from 2010 to 2014. One of the methodologies used for the study of wind was the statistical analysis using functions of probability density. There are several models of probability distribution in the literature for time series of data. For wind data, the most commonly used distribution is the Weibull function.
This distribution is considered to be the most adequate for wind characterization and is also applied in the analysis of rainfall data,
clarity index, water level prediction, among other applications. Thus, the objective of the present study is to obtain preliminary estimates of the wind potential of Cachoeira do Sul (RS) using the Weibull probability distribution to estimate the wind power. The results show that wind power is below 500W=m2 (in 50 m) which indicates low wind potential.
Downloads
References
Amarante, O. A. e. (2001). Atlas do potencial eólico brasileiro.
ANEEL. Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (2017). Big – banco de informações de geração. URL http://www2.aneel.
gov.br/aplicacoes/capacidadebrasil/capacidadebrasil.cfm.
CHANG, T. P. (2011). Performance comparison of six numerical methods in estimating weibull parameters for wind energy
application. Applied Energy, 88, 272–282.
DALMAZ, A. (2007). Estudo do potencial eólico e previsão de ventos para geração de eletricidade em santa catarina. Doutorado
em engenharia mecânica, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis.
Johansson, T. B., Burnham, L. (1993). Renewable energy: sources for fuels and electricity. Island press.
JUSTUS, A., C. G.; MIKHAIL (1976). Height variation of wind speed and wind distributions statistics. Geophysical Research
Letters, 3, 261–264.
KWON, S. D. (2010). Uncertainty analysis of wind energy potential assessment. Applied Energy, 87, 856–86.
Pishgar-Komleh, A. K., S. H., Sefeedpari., P. (2015). Wind speed and power density analysis based on weibull and rayleigh
distributions (a case study: Firouzkooh county of iran). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 313–322.
RAMÍREZ, J. A., Penélope; CARTA (2005). Influence of the data sampling interval in the estimation of the parameters of the
weibull wind speed probability density distribution: a case study. Energy Conversion and Management, 46, 2419–2438.
SENA, J. e. a. (2011). Análise das componentes do balanço energético numa lavoura de arroz irrigado. Ciência e Natura, ed.
especial., 143–146.
TAR, K. (2008). Some statistical characteristics of monthly average wind speed at various heights. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 12, 1712–1724.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
