The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output
Open accessAbstract
Reanalysis models are rapidly gaining popularity for simulating wind power output due to their convenience and global coverage. However, they should only be relied upon once thoroughly proven. This paper reports the first international validation of reanalysis for wind energy, testing NASA's MERRA and MERRA-2 in 23 European countries. Both reanalyses suffer significant spatial bias, overestimating wind output by 50% in northwest Europe and underestimating by 30% in the Mediterranean. We derive national correction factors, and show that after calibration national hourly output can be modelled with R2 above 0.95. Our underlying data are made freely available to aid future research. We then assess Europe's wind resources with twenty-year simulations of the current and potential future fleets. Europe's current average capacity factor is 24.2%, with countries ranging from 19.5% (Germany) to 32.4% (Britain). Capacity factors are rising due to improving technology and locations; for example, Britain's wind fleet is now 23% more productive than in 2005. Based on the current planning pipeline, we estimate Europe's average capacity factor could increase by nearly a third to 31.3%. Countries with large stakes in the North Sea will see significant gains, with Britain's average capacity factor rising to 39.4% and Germany's to 29.1%.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Christensen, J. H., Boberg, F., Christensen, O. B., & Lucas‐Picher, P. (2008) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2008gl035694 · Cited by 729
Slade, R., Bauen, A., & Gross, R. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2097 · Cited by 249
Cited by
Chatenet, M., Pollet, B. G., Dekel, D. R., Dionigi, F., Deseure, J., Millet, P., Braatz, R. D., Bazant, M. Z., Eikerling, M., Staffell, I., et al. (2022) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs01079k · Cited by 2,025
Self-citationThe increasing impact of weather on electricity supply and demand
Staffell, I., & Pfenninger, S. (2018) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.051 · Cited by 415
Self-citationPfenninger, S. (2017) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.051 · Cited by 367
Self-citationGeophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States
Shaner, M. R., Davis, S. J., Lewis, N. S., & Caldeira, K. (2018) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c7ee03029k · Cited by 351
Impacts of Inter-annual Wind and Solar Variations on the European Power System
Collins, S., Deane, P., Ó Gallachóir, B., Pfenninger, S., & Staffell, I. (2018) · Joule · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2018.06.020 · Cited by 250
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Staffell, I., & Pfenninger, S.
- Venue
- Energy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 114
- Pages
- 1224-1239
- ISSN
- 0360-5442 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2515518038
- Cited by
- 1,489
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 95.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.068
- The paper
- Staffell, I., & Pfenninger, S. (2016). Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.068
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.