Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19109-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative study of offshore wind energy potential assessment

using different Weibull parameters estimation methods
Harsh Patidar1 · Vikas Shende1 · Prashant Baredar1 · Archana Soni1

Received: 15 November 2021 / Accepted: 3 February 2022 / Published online: 15 February 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Wind energy is the second largest source of renewable energy, across the world. For designing and construction of wind
farms, most critical information is consistent wind resource assessment forecasts and appropriate models of wind speed
distribution for a particular site. The purpose of this study is to provide the wind characteristics and wind potential evalu-
ation of offshore locations, in Gujarat in India, using the wind Weibull density function. The Weibull shape k and scale c
parameters are computed using six distinct numerical approaches at two different heights, to determine wind power density.
The LiDAR sensor was used to capture the time series wind data. The goodness of fit test, which includes the RMSE, R2,
MAPE, and χ2 is considered to evaluate the performance of the selected methods. Wind power densities are calculated from
the acquired results with the help of estimated parameter values, all the methods used in this study were found to be appro-
priate for Weibull distribution parameters estimation. The MLM has been determined to offer the most accurate evaluation
of wind potential. The WPD computed from observed wind data was compared to the obtained power densities of the speci-
fied region. The evaluated data is a considered as preliminary characteristic of wind potential that aids in the wind energy
conversion and determining the actual wind potential of a specific site.

Keywords Offshore · Wind power density · Weibull distribution · Parameters estimation methods · Statistical analysis ·
Comparative analysis

Nomenclature and Abbreviations EMJ Empirical method of Justus

LiDAR Light detection and ranging EPFM Energy pattern factor method
WPD Wind power density MOM Moment method
SWM South-west monsoon RMSE Root mean square error
NEM North-east monsoon PDM Power density method
K Weibull shape parameter R2 Coefficient of determination
C Weibull scale parameter (m/s) MAPE Mean absolute percentage error
f(v) Weibull, probability density function Epf Energy pattern factor
F(v) Weibull, Cumulative distribution function χ2 Chi-square test
PDF Probability distribution function (v ) 
3 Mean of cubic velocity
3
CDF Cumulative distribution function v Cube of mean velocity
MLM Maximum likelihood method V Wind speed
MMLM Modified maximum likelihood method Vm Mean wind speed
GM Graphical method N Number of observations
EML Empirical method of Lysen vi Wind speed at the interval i
yi Actual wind distribution (measured data)
xi Predicted wind distribution from the Weibull
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
Α Power exponent or wind shear exponent
* Harsh Patidar 𝜌 Density of surrounding air (kg/m3)
[email protected] Σ Standard deviation
Γ Gamma function
1
Energy Centre, Maulana Azad National Institute
of Technology, Bhopal, MP, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
46342 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

Introduction many states having huge wind energy potential (R. Elavarasan
et al. 2020). It demonstrates that Gujrat and Tamil Nadu cost
The need for electricity consumptions increasing day having enormous potential of offshore wind energy. Due to the
by day due to increased populations and technological huge wind potential, the Indian Government sets its plan to
advancements, which has an influence on environmental build 5 GW and 30 GW of offshore wind farms by 2022 and
pollution levels depending on the kind of fuels utilised for 2030 respectively (Dash 2019). Global offshore wind capacity
power generation. The climatic condition threatened by reached to 34.367 GW and that of onshore wind power capac-
coal and oil-based production owing to pollutant particles ity of 698.043 GW as on 2020 (GWEC 2019).
suspended in air that substantially boosted emission of The primary important factor for a wind turbine to be
carbon (Krishnamoorthy et al. 2020). Renewable energy is installed both onshore and offshore region is systematic
most promising, helpful, and environment-friendly source examination of characteristics of wind and its potential in
of energy. Some of the renewable source of energy are target area. In general, the wind characteristics study has
wind, solar, biogas, biofuel, geothermal, tidal, and hydro been made by placing of following sensors (i.e., pressure,
energy accessible all over the world (K. Azad et al. 2019). temperature, humidity, anemometers, and LiDAR (light
According to the Paris Agreement, the average global detection and ranging)) of wind measurements for at least
temperature rise should not exceed 1.5 °C. As a result, an 1 year. Ground level measurements are considered as main
ambitious goal of 60 GW of wind power capacity has set source of data to ensure accuracy compared to satellite data.
by government of India by 2022 (MNRE 2018–19), with a For longer-term wind potential history, neighbouring sta-
total renewable energy capacity of 175 GW, because India tions such as airports and nearby wind stations are used
has always been a extruding country in renewable energy, as a reference (NREL 2020). LiDAR is an active ground-
particularly wind and solar (R. M. Elavarasan 2019). In the based optical remote sensing apparatus that sends out an
early 2021, there was 39 GW of installed wind capacity, electromagnetic signal and then analyses the back scattered
accounting for 10.25% of the total electricity mix. The expi- signals to figure out what kind of atmospheric particle the
ration of the inter-state transmission (ISTS) costs waiver in electromagnetic energy or waves scatter from. Light signals
2023, as well as the trend of hybrid tenders integrating wind, are reflected by suspended air particles such as water drop-
solar, and storage technologies, will fuel wind growth over lets, dust, pollen, and salt crystals, which are moving at the
the next 5 years. Longer-term renewable energy objectives speed of the wind. Detecting a change in the frequency of
of 450 GW by 2030, including 140 GW of wind, have also backscattered waves can be used to measure wind speed. It
been shared by the government (GWEC 2021). collects data at 10 user-defined heights up to 300 m and 50
Wind energy is currently seen as a viable energy source, data points per second in a 360-degree scan.
because of its widespread availability and long-term sus- One possibility for meeting future power needs is to build
tainability. Aside from the cost of wind power, renewables large-scale offshore wind farms. Wind power plants create
such as wind may help to address a number of important energy using wind as a fuel. Wind resource assessment is
environmental and social issues, such as increasing energy the process of determining the amount of wind available
security, generating more employment, decreasing air pollu- for a wind power plant throughout its operating life. For the
tion issues, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) construction of economically feasible wind power produc-
(Krishnamoorthy et al. 2020). The use of wind energy as tion projects of any size (small, medium, and large scale),
an alternative source of renewable energy both on and off- precise wind resource evaluation is essential. The energy
shore, has escalated (X. Chen et al. 2020). By 2020, the generated by a wind energy project may be calculated by
offshore industry is anticipated to expand at a faster rate than wind resource assessment, and hence the income the project
the onshore sector, accounting for around a quarter of all is projected to earn (Farm 2020).
new wind power installations (Krishnamoorthy et al. 2020). Accurate wind data is required for a successful assess-
As compared to onshore winds, offshore winds are more ment of wind resources. Data is generally gathered from a
frequent and consistent at similar places resulting in less single source, such as meteorological stations or airports,
turbulence. Several studies have assessed offshore wind and measurements are taken at a height of 8 or 10 m (Tor-
characteristics and wind power potential, either worldwide ralba et al. 2017). Such data sets are insufficient for evaluat-
or at specific site, providing essential information for off- ing wind energy projects, particularly at the utility scale,
shore wind power utilisation, such as spatial and potential because utility size wind turbine hub heights can reach up
variability of wind energy potential display for distinct to 100 m (Ayik et al. 2021). Knowing wind variation and
offshore regions.(X. Chen et al. 2020). average wind speed at a given time and location is very
Furthermore, India has an approximately 7600-km-long important for wind power plant energy generation (Farm
coastline with rather shallow seas along the shore. In India 2020). Therefore, the wind must be studied statistically
and describe its behaviour in terms of a probability density

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356 46343

function (PDF), cumulative distribution function (CDF) or Khambhat is 20o44′19.15′′ N Longitude and 71o40′10.53′′ Lat-
using other statistical functions (Wais 2017). itude. To evaluate Weibull parameters, 10-min average time
series wind data of 1 year from December 2018 to November
2019 is used in this study.
Literature review
Wind speed periods—seasonal
The analysis of wind data is regarded as the initial stage in
identifying prospective wind locations. Several research pro- Tamilnadu (Wind Power Profile of Tamilnadu State http://​
jects on wind resource evaluation have been conducted by www.​India​nwind​power.​Com/​Pdf/​Wind-​Power-​Profi​le-​of-​
connecting a variety of probability density functions (PDF) to Tamil​nadu-​State.​Pdf) and Gujrat (Wind Power Profile of
find the most effective measurement. To locate most promis- Gujarat State http://​www.​India​nwind​power.​com/​Pdf/​Gujar​
ing wind location, researchers used different methods in the at-​State-​Wind-​Power-​Profi​le.​pdf) are the two major states
literature. Until now, the Weibull distribution has been the having highest wind power potential in India. Regarding the
most extensively studied mathematical model for estimating classification of seasons for Gujarat state for analysis pur-
available wind energy (Azad et al. 2014a, b). A few selected pose, the effect of seasonal winds of two monsoon winds
research have been briefly discussed in Table 1 to emphasise are taken into consideration i.e. North–East and South–West
the necessity of evaluating wind energy potential across scales. (NEM and SWM) (Indexed D. 2018). The seasonal grouping
The paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 3, methodol- based on months, are as follows:
ogy is introduced along with site details, measurement, sea- Winter is considered for 2 months from January and February.
sonal variation, Weibull parameter estimation methods, wind Summer is considered for 3 months from March to May. SWM is
power density estimation, and Goodness of fit. In Sect. 5 the considered for 4 months from June to September whereas NEM
main result is discussed. At the end the concluding remarks is considered for 2 months from October to December.
are presented in Sect. 5. The mean wind speed has been estimated using the fol-
lowing expression (Rehman et al. 2019)

Methodology Vm =
1 ∑N
V (1)
N i=1 i
Wind site and measurement details Mean wind speed can be calculated by Weibull param-
eters as
The research is based on wind data gathered in the Indian state
of Gujarat. The state of Gujarat shares an international border 1
( )
Vm = cΓ 1 + (2)
with the North–Western (NW) fringe. This state is a pioneer k
in wind energy generation, with a significant contribution to Now a days, wind turbine hub height ranges between 80
the Indian power system. It has the longest coastline of about and 120 m and even more, the wind speed measured well
1600 km with a geographical area of 1.96 lakh sq. km among below hub height; the wind speed data must be extrapolated
all states of the country. It is located between 2­ 0o1′ and ­24o7′ to the wind turbine hub height (Murthy et al. 2018). The
North latitudes and ­68o4′ and ­74o4 East longitudes, at a height simple empirical power law used to calculate wind speed at
of roughly 9 m (Wind Power Profile of Gujarat State). Under hub height is given by Eq. (2) (Boopathi et al. 2021)
the supervision of the nodal ministry MNRE—Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy—and nodal agency NIWE—
( )𝛼
V2 H2
National Institute of Wind Energy), India has designated the
= (3)
V1 H1
state of Gujarat for accelerating offshore wind energy devel-
opment. It covers roughly 400 ­km2 and uses LiDAR for wind For the flat terrain, the one-seventh law will estimate the
measurements and other data collection. The closest port is vertical extrapolated wind speed. The value of α is generally
Pipavav, which is about 23 km from the Gujarat coast in the taken as 0.14 (Chandel et al. 2014).
south–east direction. An anemometer, wind vane, temperature
monitor, and pressure instruments are all commissioned as Weibull distribution
part of the monopole construction with a platform (Krishna-
moorthy et al. 2020). The first step of offshore development The wind distribution formed by wind speed is a precise
activities is to find preliminary assessments of site in Gujarat information for frequency of occurrence. This information
coastal area. The LiDAR instrument is a wind cube that can is used directly to find the wind turbine power output. The
be set to 12 different heights, with a minimum of 40 m and number of intervals throughout the data collection period
a maximum of 200 m. The coordinates of the site, gulf of where the perceived wind speed falls within certain bins

13
 Table 1  Literature review
46344

Author Work Site/location/country Findings/conclusion

13
Ilkilic and Aydin (2015) Estimated wind Power potential Turkey Founded the most capable wind energy systems
area
Y. A. Kaplan (2015) Overview of wind energy in the world Turkey Assessment of current wind energy policies in
Turkey
Dabbaghiyan et al. (2016) Estimated wind energy potential Bushehr, Iran Founded WPD = 265 W/m2 at 40 m
Allouhi et al. (2017) Analysed wind energy potential Morocco Suitable location for wind power harnessing
W. Chen et al. (2018) Estimated wind power potential based on Saudi Arabia Huge amount of high wind energy potential exists
MENA CORDEX over western Saudi Arabia
Salam et al. (2019) Investigated wind characteristics- velocity and Two sites, Brunei Darussalam Yearly energy output of 1000 and 1500 kWh at
direction by Weibull distribution 5 m/s
Luong (2015) Suggested a critical assessment of the wind Vietnam Pointing out the possibility for small-scale wind
potential farms
Ko et al. (2015) Evaluated wind power resource assessment Chuuk State, Weno Island A 20-kW rated wind turbine may produce an
annual energy output of 36MWh
Becerra et al. (2017) Techno-financial assessment with wind energy Two Chilean sites
potential
Albani and Ibrahim (2017) Evaluated wind energy potential using 10-min Kudat, Mersing, Kijal, and Langkawi, Malaysia Finding location for small and medium-capacity
measured data wind power plan
Rehman et al. (2019) Analysed wind speed and wind power density Jumla, Nepal Examined statistically, daily mean wind speed
using Weibull and Rayleigh Model data over a period of 10 years and concluded
that Weibull distribution best fits than Rayleigh
distribution
K. Azad (2014) Conducted Weibull analysis of wind power Several coastal locations The data was analysed as hourly, daily, monthly,
potential and annual of 10 min intervals at 20 m and
founded that the computed and observed PDF
and CDF are very near to each other
A. KAzad et al. (2014a, b) Estimate wind power potential using Weibull Bangladesh Finding out different regions for wind energy
distribution extraction in Bangladesh
Soulouknga et al. (2018), Kaplan Chad, Turkey, and Egypt Analyse wind data, estimate k and c and assess
(2018), Ahmed (2018) wind energy potential using Weibull distribution
Kang et al. (2018) Use the moment and energy pattern Method Jeju Island, South Korea Compare several ways to estimating Weibull
parameters
(Pobočíková et al. (2017) Evaluated the suitability of 2- and 3-parameter Slovakia Discussed the utility of three-parameter Weibull
Weibull function, gamma, and lognormal distributions (best distribution method)
distributions
Paula-Andrea Amaya-Martínez1 (2014) Used Weibull, Rayleigh, gamma, and lognormal To achieve the best fit, using R2, RMSE, KS
fit error methods (Kolmogorov–Smirnov), index of agreements
(Index-A), and wind power density (WPD) fit
error methods
Alayat et al. (2018) Tested 10 wind speed distributions in a low wind Cyprus Found that the GEV (generalised extreme value)
speed area with vertical axis turbines performed better than other distribution tech-
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

niques
 Table 1  (continued)
Author Work Site/location/country Findings/conclusion

Phadke et al. (2011) Tamilnadu, India Tamil Nadu is having the ability to collect 95% of
the Indian wind energy potential. However, they
have left out the nitty–gritty details of probable
changes when taking into account topographical
differences in different parts of the state
Singh and Prakash (2018) Evaluated available wind energy for electricity Various locations in Jharkhand including Found that the studied sites were not suitable for
generation Ranchi, Devghar, Lohardaga, Jamshedpur, and large-scale energy generation at 10 m agl, but
Chaibasa, India chances of small-scale wind turbines installation
could be high
Chandel et al. (2014) Used the Weibull distribution function to esti- Western Himalayan area of Himachal Pradesh, During the summer and winter seasons, seasonal
mate the wind resource potential India changes in daily mean speeds were utilized to
determine WPD
Costa Rocha et al. (2012) Comparing seven numerical methods for estimat-
ing shape and scale factors including energy
equivalent method
Mohammadi et al. (2016) Evaluate the efficacy of 6 methods to find Founded that the GM is the least effective among
Weibull parameters k and c for calculating the EML, EMJ, EPFM, MLM, and MMLM
wind power density
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

George (2014) Analysed the performance of five different meth- The results revealed that the MLM is better suited
ods for estimating Weibull parameters for representing wind speed distributions
S. A. Ahmed (2013) To express wind speed distribution, the accu-
racy of empirical method surpassing the other
methods
Arslan et al. (2014) Introduce L-moment method to evaluate the Compared L-moment method to the MOM and
wind parameter the MLM for estimating the parameters for a
Weibull distribution using Monte Carlo simula-
tion
Khahro et al. (2014) Pakistan Investigated and compared five alternative
numerical techniques for calculating the Weibull
parameters
Karthikeya et al. (2016) Investigated Weibull distribution and wind rose Singapore To understand the wind characteristics using
LiDAR and roof top mast for economic feasibil-
ity of wind turbines at roof
Carneiro et al. (2016) The Weibull parameters k and c for wind Brazilian Northeast Region (BRNER) The results demonstrate that PSO performs better
resources of at 80 m height were determined in the estimate of Weibull parameters, with
using the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) high coefficient of correlation and near to zero
method error when compared to that of MOM, energy
equivalent method, empirical approach, MLM,
and EPFM

13
46345
 Table 1  (continued)
46346

Author Work Site/location/country Findings/conclusion

13
Akgül et al.(2016) Used an alternate approach called the inverse Sakarya and Bursa Modified MLM is used to derive the inverse
Weibull method to estimate wind speed and Weibull parameters, and then used Monte-Carlo
find the best fitting distribution simulation to compare the performance of MLM
with the least square method. When the accu-
racy of these distributions is compared to R2 and
RMSE, the least square method is shown to be
less influential than other methods
Lee et al. (2015) Examined the Weibull parameters at the Barakah UAE To calculate directional wind characteristics by
nuclear power plant region using a double logarithmic transformation
Akdağ and Güler (2015) Developed energy pattern factor, a new method This new method is accurate and simple in calcu-
to determine Weibull parameters lation compared to MLM, GM, PDM, MOM,
Alternative MLM, MMLM, Justus Moment
Method, and WAsP Method
Sangkyun Kang et al. (2021) Compared different statistical methods Republic of Korea Founded the most appropriate method for Weibull
parameters estimation
Qiwei Li et al. (2021) Compared goodness of fit methods China The evaluation uses intelligently optimised single
and the top-ranked distributions are identified
after combining distributions to meet the high-
altitude wind speed of 20 study sites
Guarienti et al. (2020) Weibull parameter estimation numerical meth- Brazil Founded that MLM and MMLM were given the
ods performance analysis best results
Y. Li et al. (2020) Comparative study of onshore and offshore wind China For the southeast coastal region, the results show
characteristics that offshore wind energy is more even and
available than onshore wind energy
Deep et al. (2020) Estimated wind energy potential using Weibull India A novel method for estimating the actual wind
model power available to the wind turbine has been
developed
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356 46347

is referred to as the frequency of wind distribution. They

√
2 1 2
( ) ( ( ))
usually happen at a speed of 0.5 to 1 m/s. They span a 𝜎 = c. Γ 1+ − Γ 1+ (6)
k k
minimal range of speeds, such as 0 to 25 m/s and much
more, as specified by the turbine power curve.
The pattern of wind speed in a continuous time, which Turbulence intensity (TI)
is random by nature is visualized by a mathematical
representation known as probability density function It is defined as the ratio of standard deviation to the mean
(PDM). In literature the two most common distributions wind speed or the standard deviation of the experiential wind
are Weibull and Rayleigh functions. The Weibull distri- speeds every 10 min and the mean observed wind speed for
bution function is represented by two factors in which the same period are used to calculate the mean turbulence
one is a dimensionless shape parameter k whereas other intensity (MTI). The TI is decreased with increased wind
is a scale parameter c in (m/s) and it can be described speed initially, but once a certain limit of wind speed reached
by its probability density function f (v) and cumula- TI remain constant because of wave driven by wind. Turbu-
tive distribution function F (v) as given in Eqs. 4 and 5 lence Intensity measures wind turbulence fundamentally. To
respectively. According to literature Weibull distribution prevent deterioration of wind turbine’s component typically,
is very important tool to evaluate wind energy poten- 10% of TI is desired according to the IEC standard. It belongs
tial and to represent the wind speed frequency distribu- to the turbulence category, as per IEC standard. Because
tion for a particular site (Arslan et al. 2014; Khahro of the offshore location, the MTI value is low. The Gulf of
et al. 2014; Karthikeya et al. 2016; Carneiro et al. 2016; Khambhat, based on the aforementioned wind parameters,
Akgül et al. 2016; Islam et al. 2011) performs better, with a consistent wind speed and minimal
( )( )k−1 [ ( )k ] turbulence intensity. (Krishnamoorthy et al. 2020).
k v v
f (v) = exp − (4) σ
c c c TI =
V (7)
[ ( )]
v k
F(v) = 1 − exp − (5) Weibull parameters estimation methods
c

The Weibull parameters must be positive. The shape All the six methods used for Weibull parameter estimation
factor fixes the wind distribution peak of any region while is shown in Table 2.
scale factor represents the horizontal scale of the wind
distribution (Costa Rocha et al. 2012). Estimation of wind power density
If k = 2 then distribution is termed as Rayleigh distribu-
tion (Ouahabi et al. 2020). Wind power density (WPD) determines the available wind
Standard Deviation of Weibull density function strength at a given location. WPD is an important parameter

Table 2  Weibull parameters Method Equation used

estimation methods
MOM (Chaurasiya et al. 2018b)
( ) )] 1
v = cΓ 1 + 1k
[ ( ) (
𝜎 = c Γ 1 + 2k − Γ2 1 + 1k
2

1 ∑N �0.5
Vm = Vi
�
i=1 N
N 1 ∑� �2
𝜎 = N−1 vi − vm
i=1

PDM (Chaurasiya et al. 2018b) v

( )
Γ 1+ 3k 3.69
v3 k =1+ E2 pf
c = ( )
Epf = 3 = )3 Γ 1+ 1k
(v)
(
Γ 1+ 1k

EMJ (Chaurasiya et al. 2018b) ( )−1.086

v c= (
v
)
k= 𝜎
Γ 1+ 1k

EML (Chaurasiya et al. 2018b) ( )−1.086

v
(
0.433
)1
k
k= 𝜎 c = v 0.568 + k

MLM (Salam et al 2019) � ∑n

vi k lnvi
∑n
lnvi
�−1 � n � �
�1
k
k= i=1
n − i=1
1 ∑ k
c= vi
∑ k
i=1 vi n
n
i=1

GM (Ouahabi et al. 2020)

[ ( )]
k ln{−ln[1 − F(v)]} = klnv − klnc
1 − F(v) = exp − vc

13
46348 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

for determining wind potential and showing the amount of the wind speeds of the desired location. Later, using all six
wind energy in a given location at different wind speeds. methods, the MATLAB R2020a program is used to estimate
WPD is also used to evaluate wind turbine performance and the parameters of the Weibull function. In this study, WPD
to propose the best wind turbine for a given site. The wind is estimated by all six methods. To find the most appropriate
power density may be calculated in two ways. The wind method, derived wind power density by observed data was
power density is estimated using observed wind speed data in compared to that of predicted one. Several statistical studies
the first approach, and in second approach wind power den- were used to the suitability of all methods mentioned under
sity is estimated using the Weibull two-parameter method. the heading goodness of fit. The findings of this investiga-
Wind power is directly proportion to the cube of mean tion are provided in the subsections below. The complete
wind speed. WPD can be determined using the following procedure for the wind resources assessment is represented
equation (Chaurasiya et al. 2018b): by flow chart as shown in Fig. 1.
The statistical parameters such as the mean wind
P 1
WPD = = 𝜌V 3 (W∕m2 ) (8) speed, maximum wind speed, standard deviation,
A 2 avg
skewness, kurtosis and mean turbulence intensity are
Wind power density can be estimated by the help of presented in Table 4. Skewness denotes the extent to
Weibull PDF using the following equation (Chaurasiya et al. which the symmetrical bell curve or normal distribu-
2018b) tion has been distorted. It measures the asymmetry in
data distribution. It distinguishes extreme values in
P 1 3 W
( )( )
= 𝜌c3 Γ 1 + (9) one tail from extreme values in the other. Kurtosis is
A 2 k m2 all about the tails of the distribution, not the peak or
flatness. It's a term that's used to describe the extreme
values in one tail compared to the other. It is, in fact, a
Goodness of fit measure of the number of outliers in the distribution.
The skewness and kurtosis are significantly higher for
Statistical criteria were proposed to judge the performance
120 m height than 100 m, as per the observations. Dur-
of all six methods in approximating the Weibull distribution
ing the June to September (SWM) season, maximum
parameters. These statistical methods are used to measure
seasonal wind speed (20.23 m/s) and maximum mean
the performance of applied methods and match their accu-
wind speed (9.08 m/s) are shown in Table 4. With a
racy with the measured result. In this paper four statistical
mean value of 3.22 m/s throughout the year and in all
analyses have been employed to evaluate the efficiency of
seasons, the standard deviation is stable. During NEM
the six methods. These tests can be summarized in Table 3.
times (October–December), the minimum mean wind
speed was 5.47 m/s. A mean yearly wind speed value is
7.48 m/s and a maximum value is 20.28 m/s recorded.
Result and discussion Low wind speed of 5.47 m/s recorded in NEM period
while remaining times, i.e., winter and summer, indi-
This section summarizes the statistical analysis of the wind cate an average range of around 7 m/s. The monthly
data collected. The Weibull distribution function is used mean wind speed showed a peak of 10.15 m/s in July
to determine the accuracy of the distribution that best fits due to SEM and a maximum speed of 22.95 m/s in

Table 3  Goodness of fit

Statistical criteria Equation

Root mean square error (RMSE) �

N �
�1
2
RMSE value should be positive and near to zero, providing the
closeness of matching between actual data and measured data
1 ∑ �2
RMSE = yi − xi
N
i=1 [Chandel et al. 2014]
2
Chi-square error (χ ) N
(yi −xi )
2
The chi-square test is always used to determine whether or not there
χ2 =
∑
i=1
xi is a decisive difference between the predicted and actual outcome
[Chandel et al. 2014]
2
Coefficient of determination ­(R ) ∑N
(yi −zi )
2
−
∑N
(yi −xi )
2
In order to consider that the regression be highly confident, value of
R2 = i=1 i=1
∑N
i=1 (yi −zi )
2
­R2 should be close to 1 [Chandel et al. 2014]
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) 1 ∑�N
xi −yi
� The MAPE indicates the mean absolute percentage difference
MPE = N yi
∗ 100% between the observed frequencies and frequencies obtained by
i=1
Weibull distribution (Chaurasiya et al. 2018a)

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356 46349

Fig. 1  Flow chart of wind Wind Data

resource assessment

Data Classification
Day, Month, Season, Year

Wind Characteristics Wind Distribution Fitting

Weibull Distribution

Mean Wind Speed

Max. Wind Speed
Parameter Estimation Method
Standard Deviation
Graphical Method (GM)
Skewness and Kurtosis
Method of Moment (MOM)
Turbulence Intensity
Empirical Method of Justus (EMJ)
Empirical Method of Lysen (EML)
Power Density Method (PDM)
Maximum Likelihood Method (MLM)

Observed Weibull Estimated Weibull

Parameters and WPD Parameters and WPD

Goodness of Fit
(RMSE, R2, X2, MAPE)

Best Method with

Estimated WPD

Table 4  Annual and seasonal Parameter Winter Summer SWM NEM Annual
parameter (January–Feb- (March–May) (June–September) (October–
ruary) December)

MWS 7.1 7.6 9.1 5.47 7.48

Std Dev 3.13 3.08 3.42 3.03 3.42
Max 15.32 16.92 20.23 17.05 20.28
Skew 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.76 0.21
Kurt − 0.85 − 0.72 − 0.48 0.2 0.55
MTI 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.07

Table 5  Wind statistical Month Mean Std dev Max Min Skew Kurt
parameters
January 7.51 3.46 15.44 0.42 0.02 − 1.05
February 6.42 2.95 15.79 0.29 0.1 − 0.63
March 6.53 2.8 15.87 0.43 0.31 − 0.39
April 7.3 3.1 16.38 0.38 0.07 − 0.62
May 8.98 3.3 17.31 0.47 − 0.5 − 0.41
June 9.54 3.2 22.95 0.36 − 0.005 − 0.45
July 10.15 3.5 18.69 0.56 − 0.53 − 0.24
August 8.95 3.5 20.36 1.09 0.52 − 0.05
September 7.8 2.69 15.29 0.45 − 0.059 − 0.68
October 5.2 2.75 17.92 0.48 1.065 1.37
November 4.61 2.35 19.43 0.43 0.5 0.68
December 6.55 3.26 17.41 0.19 0.41 − 0.53

13
46350 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

June as shown in Table 5. In October and November, Weibull distribution and parameter estimation
low mean wind speed occurred as 5.35 and 4.75 m/s,
respectively. During October skewness factor reached The calculated value of Weibull parameters at both the
a maximum of 1.065 while for yearly data skewness heights (100 m and 120 m) is shown in Table 6. The Weibull
is 0.21. It denotes a positive wind distribution with a distribution function described by its probability density
modest skew and a range of 0.5 to 1 in magnitude. function and cumulative density function calculated by six
The annual k ur tosis value is 0.55 indicates different methods is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Moreover, from
s h o r t e r w i n d d i st r i b u t i o n w i t h t h i n n e r t a i l s . T h e Figs. 2 and 3, it is easy to identify the best fit method to
m o n t h ly m e a n w i n d s p e e d ( M WS ) a n d m o n t h ly the measured data of wind speed. The results of statistical
maximum wind speed are presented in Fig. 4. analysis are shown in Tables 7 and 8. From Table 6, the
TI represents wind turbulence fundamentally. Esti- shape factor value found to be in between 2.33 and 2.579 at
mated mean turbulence intensity was found to be around 100 m height and from 2.222 to 2.445 at 120 m height. The
6.0% (as per IEC 61,400–12-1 MTI is less than 10% wind stability observed by the value of k whereas higher
at 15 m/s wind speed). The Gulf of Khambhat, based value of c represents stronger wind. Overall value of k ranges
on the above-mentioned wind characteristics, performs from 2.222 to 2.579 showing a moderate consistency at a
better, with a low turbulence intensity and steady wind particular site and overall scale parameter value ranges from
speed. These favourable conditions provide consistent 8.441 m/s to 10.7068 m/s. It is noticed from Table 6 that at
wind generation and encourage wind farm developers both the heights, the Weibull parameter calculated by MLM
to engage in offshore wind power generation in the Gulf are much closer to the parameter computed by measured
of Khambhat. method (Fig. 4).

Table 6  Estimated value of Methods 100 m 120 m

Weibull parameters at two
different heights Shape Factor (k) Scale Factor (c) Shape Factor (k) Scale Factor (c)

Measured data 2.33 8.45 2.224 9.4393

GM 2.244 7.3742 2.155 8.4613
MOM 2.439 8.4899 2.309 9.5078
EMJ 2.45 8.4899 2.321 9.5078
EML 2.45 8.4934 2.321 10.7068
PDM 2.579 8.4846 2.445 9.5099
MLM 2.394 8.441 2.222 9.4357

0.14
Measured
1.0
0.12 GM
MOM
Cumulative Density Function
Probability Density Function

EMJ Measured
0.10 0.8
EML Graph
PDM Moment
0.08 MLM Justus
0.6
Lysen
0.06 PDM
0.4 MLM
0.04

0.2
0.02

0.00 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
V m/s Wind Speed (m/s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 2  a PDF at 100 m height. b CDF at 100 m heights

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356 46351

0.12

Measured 1.0
0.10 GM
Probability Density Function

Cumulative Density Function

MOM
EMJ 0.8
0.08
EML Measured
PDM GM
0.6
0.06 MLM MOM
EMJ
EML
0.04 0.4
PDM
MLM
0.02 0.2

0.00 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Wind Speed (m/s) Wind Speed (m/s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 3  a PDF at 120 m height. b CDF at 120 m height

An overall ranking is considered to evaluate the per- data and that of Weibull function is obtained using GM.
formance of best method in all four statistical indicators. Without a statistical indicator, it was not possible to cal-
Tables 7 and 8 show that the computed value from MLM culate the performance of various parameter estimation
shows lesser difference while graphical method shows methods. As a result, combining two statistical indicators
higher difference. allows you to compare the predicted wind power based on
observed data to those computed using the Weibull distri-
Wind power density estimation bution function. Statistical indicators that show statistical
insight related to distribution of wind power density is
The calculated value of wind power density (WPD) by six shown in Table 9.
methods and measured WPD (derived from wind speed To compare the observed wind power with that obtained
data) are shown in Table 9. Figure 5 shows the compari- using the Weibull function, two indicators relative per-
son of average wind power density obtained from all six centage error (RPE) and chi-square (χ2) are employed. It
models. Equation (9) is used to evaluate wind power den- is evident that when MLM is used to evaluate the Weibull
sity by all six methods. A higher deviation is shown by parameters, the highest accuracy is obtained whereas GM
the graphical method due to higher divergence in Weibull method is used to calculate the k and c parameters, the
factors. Table 9 Shows the statistical comparison of WPD lowest agreements are found at both the heights. The find-
estimated using 6 methods and computed using measured ings of the RPE analysis may be used as further reason
data. As per statistical analysis the calculated wind power to choose which of the six methods is the most suited for
using MLM is nearer to the measured wind power data. calculating wind power density in a particular site and
Table 9 depicts an important finding that a small change at both the heights. It is important to note that, higher
in scale factor (c) value can cause a significant impact on efficiency is achieved by PDM with a slight difference
wind power density; this is the reason of why the power in scale parameter. It is important to note that at every
density method shows a closer value to the measured wind location wind power has a unique characteristic. As a
power density compared to all other methods, with the result, locations with similar wind power characteristics,
exception of maximum likelihood. As a result, better dis- these findings can be applied. Furthermore, the statistical
tribution fitting is expected when the Maximum likelihood indicator shows that lowest achieved when GM method is
and power density methods are used to find parameters of employed to find Weibull parameters at 100 m and 120 m,
Weibull distribution. Furthermore, the highest distribu- respectively. In Table 9 the most appropriate method has
tional difference between WPD estimated using observed been highlighted in bold letters at each height.

13
 Table 7  Different statistical indicators to evaluate the performance of the 6 selected method at 100 m
46352

Method Weibull parameter Statistical Parameters

13
Shape Scale R2 Rank RMSE Rank χ2 Rank MAPE (%) Rank Overall
factor (k) factor (c) rank

Maximum 2.394 8.441 0.99996 1 0.05824 5 0.000019 1 0.291 1 1

likelihood
method
Moment 2.439 8.4899 0.9989 2 0.0578 4 0.0009 2 1.09 2 2
method
Empirical 2.45 8.4899 0.99859 3 0.05768 2 0.0014087 3 1.637 4 3
method of
Justus
Empirical 2.45 8.4934 0.9978 4 0.05769 3 0.0014253 4 1.53 3 4
method of
Lysen
Power density 2.579 8.4846 0.98649 5 0.05635 1 0.0162172 5 7.07 6 5
method
Graphical 2.244 7.3742 0.91063 6 0.11745 6 0.1135093 6 3.858 5 6
method

Table 8  Different statistical indicators to evaluate the performance of the 6 selected method at 120 m

Method Weibull parameter Statistical parameters

Shape Scale R2 Rank RMSE Rank χ2 Rank MAPE (%) Rank Overall
factor (k) factor (c) rank

Maximum 2.222 9.4357 0.99982 1 0.05907 3 0.0000769 1 0.602 1 1

likelihood
method
Moment 2.309 9.5078 0.99545 2 0.06171 4 0.00238 2 3.327 2 2
method
Empirical 2.321 9.5078 0.99438 3 0.06209 5 0.00306 3 3.833 3 3
method of
Justus
Empirical 2.321 10.7068 0.99387 4 0.05849 2 0.00348 4 4.165 4 4
method of
Lysen
Power density 2.445 9.5099 0.97801 5 0.05233 1 0.01305 6 7.419 6 5
method
Graphical 2.155 8.4613 0.97687 6 0.06768 6 0.01171 5 7.218 5 6
method
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356 46353

Fig. 4  Monthly mean and maxi-

mum wind velocity Mean (m/s) Max (m/s)

25 22.95
20.36
18.69 19.43
20 17.92 17.41
17.31
16.38
15.44 15.79 15.87 15.29
15

9.54 10.15
10 8.98 8.95
7.51 7.3 7.8
6.42 6.53 6.55
5.2 4.61
5

Table 9  Wind power density Methods 100 m 120 m

(W/m2) statistical analysis
2
calculated by 6 different WPD RPE (%) χ WPD RPE (%) χ2
methods
Measured 430.35 438.54
Maximum likelihood method (MLM) 465.26 6.943 2.8323 473.75 4.028 2.8269
Moment method (MOM) 463.68 8.629 2.5809 480.21 5.7487 3.9598
Empirical method of Justus (EMJ) 461.36 8.169 2.2349 478.10 5.839 3.5689
Empirical method of Lysen (EML) 470.84 8.407 3.8103 482.38 5.9158 4.3818
Graphical method (GM) 531.18 20.057 23.6229 539.34 19.758 23.1698
Power density method (PDM) 466.77 7.187 3.0827 474.82 5.2905 3.001

Fig. 5  Average wind power

density variation with respect
to height
600

500

400
WPD

300

200

100

0
Measured Maximum Moment Empirical Empirical Graphical Power
likelihood method method method method density
method of Justus of Lysen method

100m 120m

13
46354 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

Conclusions V. Shende: visualization, software, validation, and resources. P. Baredar

and A. Soni validation and supervision. All authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
To determine a better understanding of a location to be
appropriate for wind power development and assessment of Data availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the cur-
wind energy potential, the wind power density plays a very rent study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
important role. request.

• The Weibull parameters have been used in various Declarations

research regarding wind energy due to its simplicity,
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable
flexibility, and accuracy.
• Performance of all six numerical methods -PDM, MLM, Consent for publication Not applicable
MOM, EMJ, EML, and GM, was evaluated in this paper
for estimating the shape (k) and scale factor (c) of the Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
Weibull distribution function for computing wind power
density at both heights in the Gulf of Khambhat, India.
• A comparison had been set between the wind power den-
sity calculated using the Weibull function to the wind
power density derived using observed data to achieve References
this objective. The results demonstrate that the values
of Weibull parameters have an impact on wind power Ahmed AS (2018) Wind energy characteristics and wind park instal-
lation in Shark El-Ouinat, Egypt. Renewable and Sustainable
density values, with minor variations in k and c values Energy Reviews 82 (August 2017): 734–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
having a higher impact. 1016/j.​rser.​2017.​09.​031
• As a result, a reliable method to calculate parameters c Ahmed SA (2013) Comparative study of four methods for estimating
and k for evaluating WPD and efficiently utilising wind Weibull parameters for Halabja Iraq. Int J Phys Sci 8(5):186–192.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​IJPS12.​697
resource of a location is developed. As a result of the Akdağ S, Güler Ö (2015) A novel energy pattern factor method for
statistical study, MLM has a favourable performance wind speed distribution parameter estimation. Energy Convers
whereas GM has a poor performance. Manage 106:1124–1133. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​
• Another important finding indicated that the sensitivity 2015.​10.​042
Akgül FG, Senoglu B, Arslan T (2016) An alternative distribution to
of scale factor (c) is very high; as a result, PDM was Weibull for modeling the wind speed data: inverse Weibull dis-
shown to be the second most efficient method for wind tribution. Energy Convers Manage 114:234–240. https://​doi.​org/​
power density calculations, but the least efficient way to 10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2016.​02.​026
estimate Weibull parameters. Alayat MM, Kassem Y, Camur H (2018) Assessment of wind energy
potential as a power generation source: a case study of eight
• It was also discovered that the approach for estimating selected locations in Northern Cyprus. Energies 11 (10). https://​
the least suitable parameters was not the same for differ- doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en111​02697
ent heights. For estimating the wind power density, the Albani A, Ibrahim MZ (2017) Wind energy potential and power law
MLM was shown to be most efficient method for estimat- indexes assessment for selected near-coastal sites in Malaysia.
Energies 10 (3). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en100​30307
ing shape and scale parameters. Allouhi A, Zamzoum O, Islam MR, Saidur R, Kousksou T, Jamil A,
• The proposed methods to estimate Weibull parameters Derouich A (2017) Evaluation of wind energy potential in Moroc-
may be employed to represent wind power density co’s Coastal Regions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72 (December
with high efficiency. The proposed parameters estimate 2016): 311–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2017.​01.​047
Arslan T, Murat Bulut Y, Yavuz AA (2014) Comparative study of
method may be utilized to calculate various statistical numerical methods for determining Weibull parameters for wind
parameters of power density and to depict wind power energy potential. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 40:820–825. https://​
density with high efficiency. doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2014.​08.​009
Ayik A, Ijumba N, Kabiri C, Goffin P (2021) Preliminary wind resource
assessment in South Sudan using reanalysis data and statistical
methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 138 (March). https://​doi.​
Acknowledgements The researchers are thankful to the assistance
org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2020.​110621
offered by the faculties of NIT Bhopal for providing the support to
Azad AK, Rasul MG, Alam MM, Ameer Uddin SM, Mondal SK
facilitate this study. Authors would like to thank the National Institute
(2014a) Analysis of wind energy conversion system using Weibull
of Wind Energy, Chennai, India for providing wind data facility. “I have
Distribution. Procedia Engineering 90:725–732. https://​doi.​org/​
not submitted my manuscript to a preprint server before submitting it
10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2014.​11.​803
to Environmental Science and Pollution Research”.
Azad AK, Rasul MG, Yusaf T (2014b) Statistical diagnosis of the
best Weibull methods for wind power assessment for agricultural
Authors’ contributions H. Patidar: conceptualization, methodology, applications. Energies 7(5):3056–3085. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
data curation, writing—original draft, review and editing, software. en705​3056

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356 46355

Azad K (2014) Weibull’s analysis of wind power potential at coastal Farm DWind (2020) Addis Ababa Institute of Technology School of
sites in Kuakata, Bangladesh XX (January 2011) mechanical and industrial engineering wind resource assessment :
Azad K, Rasul M, Halder P, Sutariya J (2019) Assessment of wind a case study on Dangla Wind Farm, no. June
energy prospect by Weibull distribution for prospective wind sites George F (2014) A comparison of shape and scale estimators of the
in Australia. Energy Procedia 160:348–355. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ two-parameter Weibull distribution. J Modern Appl Statistic
1016/j.​egypro.​2019.​02.​167 Methods 13 (1): 23–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22237/​jmasm/​13989​
Becerra M, Morán J, Jerez A, Cepeda F, Valenzuela M (2017) Wind 16920
energy potential in Chile: assessment of a small scale wind farm Guarienti JA, Almeida AK, Neto AM, de Oliveira Ferreira AR,
for residential clients. Energy Convers Manage 140:71–90. https://​ Ottonelli JP, de Almeida IK (2020) Performance analysis of
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2017.​02.​062 numerical methods for determining weibull distribution parame-
Boopathi K, Kushwaha R, Balaraman K, Bastin J, Kanagavel P, Reddy ters applied to wind speed in Mato Grosso Do Sul, Brazil. Sustain
Prasad DM (2021) Assessment of wind power potential in the Energy Technol Assess 42 (October). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
coastal region of Tamil Nadu, India. Ocean Engineering 219 (June seta.​2020.​100854
2020): 108356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ocean​eng.​2020.​108356 https://​Gwec.​Net/​Global-​Wind-​Report-​2019/. n.d.
Carneiro TC, Melo SP, Carvalho PCM, Plínio A, de S. Braga. (2016) https://​Gwec.​Net/​Indias-​Wind-​Market-​Set-​to-​Bounce-​Back-​with-​
Particle swarm optimization method for estimation of Weibull Nearly-​50-​Growth-​over-​next-​Five-​Years/. n.d.
parameters: a case study for the Brazilian Northeast Region. https://​Www.​Nrel.​Gov/​Docs/​Fy15o​sti/​63696.​Pdf. n.d.
Renewable Energy 86:751–759. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​ Ilkiliç C, Aydin H (2015) Wind power potential and usage in the coastal
2015.​08.​060 regions of Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 44:78–86. https://​
Chandel SS, Murthy KSR, Ramasamy P (2014) Comparative study doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2014.​12.​010
of five different methods of adjustment by the Weibull model to Indexed D (2018) Wind power development in Tamil Nadu 8 (3):
determine the most accurate method of analyzing annual vari- 661–73
ations of wind energy in Tetouan. Sustainable Energy Technol Islam MR, Saidur R, Rahim NA (2011) Assessment of wind energy
Assess 8:18–33 potentiality at Kudat and Labuan malaysia using weibull distribu-
Chaurasiya PK, Ahmed S, Warudkar V (2018a) Comparative analysis tion function. Energy 36(2):985–992. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
of weibull parameters for wind data measured from Met-Mast and energy.​2010.​12.​011
remote sensing techniques. Renewable Energy 115:1153–1165. Kang D, Ko K, Huh J (2018) Comparative study of different methods
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2017.​08.​014 for estimating Weibull parameters: a case study on Jeju Island,
Chaurasiya PK, Ahmed SW, Vilas. (2018b) Study of different parame- South Korea. Energies 11 (2). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 390/e​ n1102​ 0356
ters estimation methods of Weibull distribution to determine wind Kang S, Khanjari A, You S, Lee JH (2021) Comparison of different
power density using ground based Doppler SODAR Instrument. statistical methods used to estimate Weibull parameters for wind
Alex Eng J 57(4):2299–2311. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/J.A
​ EJ.2​ 017.​ speed contribution in nearby an offshore site, Republic of Korea.
08.​008 Energy Rep 7:7358–7373. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​egyr.​2021.​
Chen W, Castruccio S, Genton MG, Crippa P (2018) Current and future 10.​078
estimates of wind energy potential over Saudi Arabia. J Geophys Kaplan YA (2015) Overview of wind energy in the world and assess-
Res: Atmos 123(12):6443–6459. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2017J​ ment of current wind energy policies in Turkey. Renew Sustain
D0282​12 Energy Rev 43:562–568. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2014.​11.​
Chen X, Foley A, Zhang Z, Wang K, O’Driscoll K (2020) An assess- 027
ment of wind energy potential in the Beibu Gulf considering the Kaplan YA (2018) Performance assessment of power density method
energy demands of the Beibu Gulf economic rim. Renew Sustain for determining the Weibull distribution coefficients at three dif-
Energy Rev 119 (November 2019): 109605. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ ferent locations. Flow Meas Instrum 63(October):8–13. https://​
1016/j.​rser.​2019.​109605 doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​FLOWM​EASIN​ST.​2018.​07.​004
Costa Rocha PA, de Sousa RC, de Andrade CF, da Silva MEV (2012) Karthikeya BR, Negi PS, Srikanth N (2016) Wind resource assess-
Comparison of seven numerical methods for determining Weibull ment for urban renewable energy application in Singapore. Renew
parameters for wind energy generation in the Northeast Region Energy 87 (P1): 403–14. https://e​ conpa​ pers.r​ epec.o​ rg/R ​ ePEc:e​ ee:​
of Brazil. Appl Energy 89 (1): 395–400. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​ renene:​v:​87:y:​2016:i:​p1:p:​403-​414
apene​rgy.​2011.​08.​003 Khahro SF, Tabbassum K, Soomro AM, Dong L, Liao X (2014) Evalu-
Dabbaghiyan A, Fazelpour F, Abnavi MD, Rosen MA (2016) Evalua- ation of wind power production prospective and Weibull param-
tion of wind energy potential in province of Bushehr Iran. Renew eter estimation methods for Babaurband, Sindh Pakistan. Energy
Sustain Energy Rev 55:455–466. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​ Conversion Manage 78 (C): 956–67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
2015.​10.​148 encon​man.​2013.​06.​062
Dash PK (2019) Offshore wind energy in India, no. April: 23–25 Ko DH, Jeong ST, Kim YC (2015) Assessment of wind energy for
Deep S, Sarkar A, Ghawat M, Rajak MK (2020) Estimation of the wind small-scale wind power in Chuuk State, Micronesia. Renew Sus-
energy potential for coastal locations in india using the Weibull tain Energy Rev 52:613–622. https://d​ oi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2015.​
model”. Renewable Energy 161:319–339. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 07.​160
1016/j.​renene.​2020.​07.​054 Krishnamoorthy RK, Udhayakumar, Kannadasan Raju, Rajvikram
Elavarasan RM (2019) Comprehensive review on India’s growth in Madurai Elavarasan, and Lucian Mihet-Popa (2020) An assess-
renewable energy technologies in comparison with other promi- ment of onshore and offshorewind energy potential in India using
nent renewable energy based countries. J Solar Energy Eng 42 (3). moth flame optimization. Energies 13 (12). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​40455​84 3390/​en131​23063
Elavarasan R, Shafiullah Gm, Sanjeevikumar P, Kumar NM, Annam Lee J, Yook D, Lee K, Jong-Il Yun, and Philip Beeley (2015) Weibull
A, Vetrichelvan A, Lucian MIHET-POPA, Holm-Nielsen J (2020) parameter calculation and estimation of directional and seasonal
A comprehensive review on renewable energy development, chal- wind speeds for the return period: a case study in the Barakah NPP
lenges, and policies of leading Indian states with an international Area. Annals of Nuclear Energy 80. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
perspective. IEEE Access PP. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​ anuce​ne.​2015.​01.​030
2020.​29880​11

13
46356 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:46341–46356

Li Q, Wang J, Zhang H (2021) Comparison of the goodness-of-fit of Pobočíková I, Sedliačková Z, Michalková M (2017) Application of
intelligent-optimized wind speed distributions and calculation in Four Probability Distributions for Wind Speed Modeling. Proce-
high-altitude wind-energy potential assessment. Energy Convers dia Engineering 192:713–718. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​
Manage 247(217):114737. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​ 2017.​06.​123
2021.​114737 Rehman S, Narayanan N, Mangottiri V, Alhems L (2019) Assessment
Li, Yi, Xuan Huang, Kong Fah Tee, Qiusheng Li, and Xiao Peng Wu. of wind energy potential across varying topographical features of
2020. Comparative study of onshore and offshore wind char- Tamil Nadu India. Energy Explor Exploit 38:014459871987527.
acteristics and wind energy potentials: a case study for south- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01445​98719​875276
east coastal region of China. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 39 Salam MA, Yazdani MG, Rahman QM, Nurul Dk, Mei SF, Hasan S
(March). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​seta.​2020.​100711 (2019) Investigation of wind energy potentials in Brunei Darus-
Luong N (2015) A critical review on potential and current status of salam. Front Energy 13 (4): 731–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
wind energy in Vietnam. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 43:440–448. s11708-​018-​0528-4
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2014.​11.​060 Singh R, Prakash Om (2018) Wind energy potential evaluation for
Mohammadi K, Alavi O, Mostafaeipour A, Goudarzi N, Jalilvand power generation in selected districts of Jharkhand. Energy
M (2016) Assessing different parameters estimation methods Sources, Part a: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects
of Weibull distribution to compute wind power density. Energy 40(6):673–679. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15567​036.​2018.​14545​48
Convers Manage 108:322–335. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​ Soulouknga MH, Doka SY, Revanna N, Djongyang N, Kofane TC
man.​2015.​11.​015 (2018) Analysis of wind speed data and wind energy potential
Murthy KSR, Rahi OP, Sonkar P, Ram S (2018) Longterm analysis in Faya-Largeau, Chad, using Weibull distribution. Renewable
of wind speed and wind power resource assessment for the site Energy 121:1–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2018.​01.​002
Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India.” 2017 6th International Torralba V, Doblas-Reyes F, MacLeod D, Jiménez IC, Davis M (2017)
Conference on Computer Applications in Electrical Engineering Seasonal climate prediction: a new source of information for the
- Recent Advances, CERA 2017 2018-Janua: 140–45. https://​doi.​ management of wind energy resources. J Appl Meteorol Climatol
org/​10.​1109/​CERA.​2017.​83433​16 56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​JAMC-D-​16-​0204.1
Ouahabi MH, Elkhachine H, Benabdelouahab F, Khamlichi A (2020) Wais P (2017) A review of Weibull functions in wind sector. Renew
Comparative study of five different methods of adjustment by the Sustain Energy Rev 70(September):1099–1107. https://​doi.​org/​
Weibull model to determine the most accurate method of analyz- 10.​1016/j.​rser.​2016.​12.​014
ing annual variations of wind energy in Tetouan -Morocco”. Pro- Wind Power Profile of Gujarat State. Indianwindpower.Com Web
cedia Engineering 46:698–707. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​ Portal. Available Online: http://​www.​India​nwind​power.​com/​Pdf/​
2020.​03.​099 Gujar​at-​State-​Wind-​Power-​Profi​le.​pdf. n.d.
Phadke Amol and Aboratory, B Erkeley N Ational L, and Amol Wind Power Profile of Tamilnadu State Http:, Indianwindpower.Com
Phadke. (2011) “E RNEST O RLANDO L AWRENCE Reas- Web Portal. Available Online: https://​www.​India​nwind​power.​
sessing Wind Potential Estimates for India : Economic and Policy Com/​Pdf/​Wind-​Power-​Profi​le-​of-​Tamil​nadu-​State.​Pdf. n.d.
Implications Reassessing Wind Potential Estimates for India :
Economic and Policy Implications,” no. July Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Paula-Andrea Amaya-Martínez, Andrés-Julián Saavedra-Montes1 and jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Eliana-Isabel Arango-Zuluaga1 (2014) A Statistical Analysis Of
Wind Speed Distribution Models In The ABURRÁ VALLEY,
COLOMBIA. J Oil, Gas Alternative Energy Sourc 5 (5): 121–36

13