Papers for
renewable energy software developers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Gpu speeds wind farm design search nearly ten times faster
GPU-accelerated wind farm layout search with a distilled endogenous wake model (EndoWake)
Abstract: Wind farm layout optimization decides where to place turbines to maximize annual energy production, and wake effects decide how much of that energy is produced. Accurate wake models are too slow for a search. We build on EndoWake, an endogenous wake model in which the wind speed at every grid cell is a variable linked to its upwind neighbors by linear constraints, so that wake field, siting decisions and project constraints share one mixed-integer model. Its four parameters are calibrated once against the single-wake field of a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulation, and a GPU scores over a million layouts per second per wind direction. Comparing EndoWake-guided searches with a PyWake-based pipeline at Lillgrund, under a RANS judge that no search calls, revealed that the fidelity of a wake model is not the quality of the layouts optimized under it. A search is drawn to the gaps between sampled wind directions, the sirens; a diagnostic of the field finds a second artifact, an optimistic band off each wake edge, the mermaid cells, not reported before to our knowledge. Judged at random directions, the two pipelines are statistically indistinguishable. Our main result puts this speed to use: EndoWake screens the candidate moves of a local search on the GPU, and PyWake confirms every accepted move. On twenty unseen starts, with one GPU and thirty CPU processes, this screen-and-confirm search matches the PyWake value of a search on PyWake alone 7.9 times faster, and 14.9 times faster on the annual energy.
Comprehensive benchmark improves wind power forecasting evaluation
WPBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Wind Power Forecasting
Abstract: Accurate, reliable, and deployable wind power forecasting is critical for power system dispatch, renewable energy integration, and electricity market operations. Progress in this field hinges on the ability to empirically and comprehensively benchmark forecasting methods. Yet existing benchmarks fall short of supporting systematic evaluation in four key aspects: 1) limited coverage of wind power scenarios across turbine scale, variable composition, and spatial structure; 2) incomplete coverage of forecasting model families; 3) evaluation metrics misaligned with wind power requirements; and 4) limited structure-aware diagnostics beyond individual temporal patterns. To address these limitations, we propose WPBench, a comprehensive, fair, and extensible benchmark for wind power forecasting. WPBench integrates 26 public datasets organized by turbine scale and variable composition, spanning single-turbine, multi-turbine, univariate, and multivariate settings. Under unified processing, training, and evaluation protocols, it benchmarks 19 representative models covering traditional methods, deep temporal models, spatio-temporal models, and foundation models. Beyond point-wise errors, WPBench assesses forecast-curve fidelity and computational efficiency, and delivers structure-aware diagnostics across temporal, variable-dependency, and spatial-dependency perspectives. Together, these capabilities enable systematic model comparison across diverse wind scenarios and provide a reusable platform for future research.
Ensemble methods improve photovoltaic forecast accuracy with careful component selection
Ensemble Complexity in Photovoltaic Forecasting
Abstract: An ensemble can improve photovoltaic forecasts while adding components that contribute little or increase computation. We assess these effects through matched comparisons and ablations of a fixed heterogeneous predictor bank. Hourly experiments use GEFCom2014 and three additional public datasets, with chronological partitions and three seeds. Under retrospective ERA5 assistance, static fusion reduces scaled mean absolute error against matched boosting by 1.11%, 4.41%, and 1.63% on PVDAQ, OPSD, and Ausgrid; only OPSD remains supported after multiple-comparison correction. Weather gating offers no consistent incremental benefit. Exploratory member removals show group-level dependence alongside individual redundancy. A separate, previously inspected fifteen-minute case replaces one neural member with a tree predictor: normalized error falls by 1.72%, but measured inference is slower. These findings support component-wise evaluation with explicit limits on weather availability and test-set reuse.